No comments about Thomas Paine: Enlightenment, Revolution, and the Birth of the Modern Nations.

1 comments about Courage and Country: James Shields: More Than Irish Luck.

1. This book gives a good overview of the life of a very successful immigrant who has disappeared into the pages of history. It also provides a historical perspective of the US during James Shields life with some different information on the early days of Abraham Lincoln's political career. An easy way to remind yourself of history you may have forgotten.

5 comments about Churchill: Visionary. Statesman. Historian..

1. John Lukas clearly states at the beginning of his short book that his collection of essays is neither a biography nor a scholarly study of Winston Spencer Churchill (pg. xiii). Therefore, potential readers of Lukas' book who do not know anything about the key milestones in the life and career of Churchill should not start here. These readers can read books such as "Churchill a Life", "Churchill a Study in Greatness", "Clementine Churchill The Biography of a Marriage", "Winston and Clementine The Personal Letters of the Churchills" or "The Wit & Wisdom of Winston Churchill" to fill in the most glaring gaps in their knowledge of Churchill for that purpose.

   Lukas writes to the attention of an audience who has an unquenchable thirst to know more and more about an individual who remains a source of inspiration to many men and women who stand in the way of barbarity and illiberalism around the world.

   Although Lukas is generally sympathetic to Churchill, he is not blind to his major shortcomings: impetuosity, impatience, stubbornness and fancifulness (pg. 4, 154). Furthermore, Lukas reminds his audience in his essay "His Failures. His Critics" that Churchill had accumulated errors and mistakes that Churchill critics and detractors were attributing to his flawed character (pg. 129). For example, Churchill's futile fight against granting Dominion status to India from 1929 to 1935 was perhaps compatible with his imperialist credentials but certainly a clear blemish on his record. As a very experienced politician and knowledgeable historian at that time, Churchill should have known much better (pg. 14-15, 24, 135-136). Therefore, Lukas' collection of essays should not be construed as a shameful hagiography.

   Furthermore, Lukas reminds his audience in "Churchill's historianship" and "Churchill the visionary" that Churchill was generally cognizant of the lessons that he could draw from past events to articulate his often-visionary policies while reflecting on and shaping history on his turn (pg. 1-18, 47). Churchill was not only a spectator, but also a key actor and play writer of human comedy (pg. 102).

   Lukas also explores the ups and downs that Churchill had in his relationships with other history shapers such as Charles De Gaulle, Dwight Eisenhower, Adolf Hitler, Franklin Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin (pg. 19-20). Lukas convincingly explains that Churchill was facing an unpalatable choice between a Europe entirely ruled by Nazi Germany or half of Europe dominated by the Communists in case of allied victory (pg. 11, 27-28, 35). Churchill rightly first gave top priority to successfully fighting Hitler to death before trying in vain to stop Stalin in 1944-1945. Unlike some unimaginative people, Churchill understood right at the birth of the Soviet Union that the Bolsheviks should be stopped immediately before they grew into a gathering threat to the world. War-weary, the victors of WWI, unfortunately, gave only half-hearty support to the White Russians in their desperate fight against the Soviets (pg. 23). Once again, long-term pains were the reward for short-term gains.

   Some (American) readers will not be very pleased while reading Lukas' unflattering portrait of Eisenhower and the men around him in "Churchill and Eisenhower." As mentioned above, Churchill was definitely right to try to thwart in 1944-1945 the apparently irresistible advance of the Soviets in Central and Eastern Europe. Churchill clearly understood that geography and territory mattered, not ideology (pg. 42). For that reason, the British army met the Russians east of the entry to the Danish peninsula at the request of Churchill in 1945 (pg. 45). Unfortunately, the American leadership did not want to hear anything about it at that time (pg. 35-40, 46). Some European regions such as former East Germany and the Czech Republic should have been eventually spared the murderous and inefficient rule of the former Soviet Union (pg. 43). The Greeks should continue to be very thankful to Churchill for saving them from a communist tyranny (pg. 41, 48).

   In his famous, visionary Iron Curtain speech in 1946, Churchill expressed his concern with the murderous, inefficient embrace of Communism in the European regions under Stalin's control. American reception of this historic speech was at best lukewarm (pg. 47). Churchill knew better and was predicting at the end of 1952 that time was not on the side of Communism (pg. 48, 79).

   After the death of Stalin in 1953, Churchill, Prime Minister again, could not convince his friend Eisenhower, who in the meantime became President of the U.S.A., of finding some kind of accommodation with the new Soviet leadership (pg. 70, 73-74). Subsequent events proved that Eisenhower was right when he saw no difference after Stalin was gone (pg. 71, 77). Contrary to what Lukas thinks, Eisenhower should not be described as a leader without any vision under the nefarious influence of men such as John Foster Dulles (pg. 79-80). Many western leaders shared Eisenhower's views on this subject (pg. 81-82). The former Soviet Union was not yet in sufficient decline in the early 1950s to negotiate in a position of force with it as world leaders such as President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher understood very well in the 1980s.




2. This was my first book by Lukacs and I am not a historical scholar. I picked it up to learn more about Churchill, and where this admirable leader was coming from. If you are looking for a primer or a thorough biography of W.S., this is not the book for you. However, if you are already familiar with his background, ancestry, and accomplishments in detail, this book serves as a kind of postmortem love letter.
   
   It is certainly well-written--Lukacs is a talented writer who knows how to turn a phrase, as he exhibits in his diary entries describing Churchill's funeral. However, for all of W.S.'s greatness, Lukacs seems a doggedly loyal to the man and utterly resistant to any criticism. There is also noticeable resentment toward Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and other American officials, as the author apotheosizes Churchill above any and all other leaders during the most critical time in 20th century history. Regardless of the veracity of his position, I would recommend reading up on other perspectives to temper Lukacs' ode to Churchill's infallibility.
   
   Overall, this is a brief and awe-inspiring read: a worthy eulogy for a worthy man that sometimes sparkles in prose, sometimes fizzles in excessive reverence.



3. What we have is a series of essays written about Churchill by a man who is both a highly regarded historian and a fan.
   
   The last essay, I found quite moving where he discusses his time at Churchill funeral.
   
   Yet the quality of these essays is not brilliant. In some ways they are repetitive with the same facts repeated again in another essay. Also the writer is also prone to exaggeration eg that the Germans could in June or July 1940 successfully invaded Britain.
   
   I have read much on Churchill and found this book disappointing maybe as from a historian of the quality of John Lukacs, I expected more.



4. I read this book here in Brazil, last year.It's cheap, concise and easy to understand.There's failures in this book?Yes.
   At first, this book is biased.John Lukacs is a Churchill's fan.
   To exemple, Mr. Churchill was a deeply eugenist.This book never talks about this.Another exemple is that in 1899, Winston Churchill spoke against Islam something like this:"How dreadfull are the curses which mohammedanism slays on its votaries...No stronger retrograde force exists in the world..."
   The core of this book is to show Churchill after 1930.Even this, it fails sometimes.In chapter 4, Lukacs claims that Eisenhower was wrong about than USSR, and Churchill was right.In fact both were right.The american politics for Cold War, was basically the same, for every american president, since Truman,in 1945, to George Bush in 1991.
   Churchill also was among the men who created Iraq.Churchill also put the last Iran's Xah in power.All of these Churchill's mistakes aren't in this book.
   This is a fan's book, not an unbiased book.



5. This is another of the "short" Churchill books that have become popular over the last several years and are less than full blown biographies but more than just private musings of the author. This author has an engaging style and if you've read any of his previous books on this subject it should come as no surprise that this book is for the most part a positive portrayal. The book covers the several themes stated in the title with a varying degree, (in this reader's opinion), of success. The high points include insight into Churchill's role, (and motivation), as an historian, his role with Stalin and the division of post WWII Europe and the evolution of Churchill's relationship with Eisenhower, (maybe the best chapter in the book). Considering all that has been written on Churchill this reader found some "new" perspectives and food for thought in the above. On the downside, several of the other chapters - the rehashing of Gallipoli, Churchill's "wilderness" years do not provide much detail or insight and the last chapter - a journal entry written contemporaneously describing Churchill's funeral - was little more than filler to this reader. This disparity in the writing is unfortunately one of the salient points I took away from the book. That being said, (written), this book would not be the place to start with Churchill but it is a more than an adequate supplement.

5 comments about The Last Trek--A New Beginning: The Autobiography.

1. I purchased The Last Trek after returning from a recent business trip to South Africa in the hope that it would shed light on how the white minority in that country manoeuvred itself into the predicament it now faces. --- It certainly did hence my positive four stars rating of this book.

   Recent events in Zimbabwe highlight the plight of ethnic minorities in countries ruled by an African majority. We have witnessed the steady disappearance one way or another of ethnic minorities across the African continent since the independence movement began in the late 1950's and 60's. Sometimes this has happened in a peaceful fashion like in Kenya where former British settlers quietly returned to the U.K. in the years following independence. Sometimes it's been abrupt and traumatic like when Idi Amin decided overnight to rob and deport Uganda's entire Indian community. Sometimes it's been horrific and bloody as recounted by former Portuguese citizens of Mozambique and Angola. Whatever the methods the end result has always been the same, reclamation of sovereignty by the African majority via the expulsion of non African minorities. With the exception of South Africa there are quite frankly no significant non African minorities in Sub Saharan Africa. This phenomenon is not restricted to Africa, I noticed a distinct lack of diversity driving around Harlem recently, in fact I challenge any non African to walk around let alone live in an African American neighbourhood.

   Mr De Klerk clearly demonstrated in his book that he was very much aware of the consequences of black majority rule; he also expressed unease in regard to the totalitarian tactics used by the ANC to intimidate opponents during the elections. Towards the end of his book he poignantly describes the modern post apartheid South Africa which confirms his original fears: "There is growing anxiety over the intolerable levels of crime in the country, there is anger over the apparently systematic murder of white farmers..there is alarm over the decline in services and standards; there is a sense of grievance over the reverse racial discrimination in unfairly applied affirmative action; there is deep concern over the perception that whites are now being made the scapegoats for all the ills of our society and that, in the future, the ANC will blame us for their failure to deliver on the promises they made to their supporters; there is disillusion over the perceptions that whites are no longer really welcome in the new South Africa unless they conform with the ANC's model." (p.394-395)

   Despite numerous diatribes on the part of the author reflecting on the moral righteousness of his actions Mr De Klerk leaves the reader with the distinct impression at the end of the book that the new South Africa he helped bring into being is a failure. There is a sense of unease about the future facing white South Africans, which the author tries to reconcile by arguing that the new South Africa was inevitable: "This book is, in essence, the story of how we, at last, confronted those realities and dismantled the laager of apartheid."(p.390). After reading this book however I would argue that Mr De Klerk was more than a pragmatist, he betrayed his people. By his people I mean the white minority that voted him into office, not the entire South African Nation over whom he had no franchise.

   Yes, I agree with Mr De Klerk's view that the dismantling of apartheid was inevitable however my concern is that he did so without providing his people with any form of safeguard in case the new rainbow nation did not work out. The tragedy of South Africa is best summarized by the following quotation from an eminent Zulu leader: "Towards the end of our meeting King Goodwill said that he anticipated that things would go worse in the new South Africa than they had gone in other African countries. He said that he had nowhere to run to with his white and black brothers."(p.307) These words are haunting because they encapsulate the key difference between the impending decolonisation of South Africa vs. every other former European colony; this time there is nowhere for the European minority to run to. Former colonists with British, French, Belgian and Portuguese passports could go home when things got tough, in the same way that Korean families fled African American neighbourhoods in L.A. after the last spate of rioting and racial intimidation. South African minorities don't have this option.

   Mr De Klerk was certainly not naive, nor was he an idealist; he was a pragmatist with an understanding of African history who knew that his people faced at best an uncertain future under black majority rule. Despite this he refused to demand any form of genuine guarantee for their safety lest it impede his growing fame as a world statesman. In the early nineties from a position of strength Mr De Klerk could have demanded dual nationality from the Western powers for every European, Cape Coloured and Indian South African, this should have been a non negotiable prerequisite to black majority rule given the history of that continent. If countries like the U.K., Holland, U.S.A, Australia and Canada, not to mention the Nordic nations were serious about dismantling apartheid they would have been hard put as a group not to give in to such a request, especially if they genuinely believed that democracy would lead to prosperity and peace.

   Despite my personal differences with the author I highly recommend this book as a stimulating, provocative read which provides a background to the upcoming tragedy about to unfold in Southern Africa.




2. De Klerk realized early in his political career that Apartheid was dead and would continue to ostracize South Africa. With the dissipating threat of Communism on South Africa's borders, how could South Africa justify its policies? De Klerk steered through the policies that gave birth to Apartheid in 1948, and set the National Party and the White electorate on a course towards reconciliation. De Klerk was a pragmatist and a man of peace. Releasing Mandela from prison and negotiating a constitutional blueprint for the future, New South Africa is an accomplishment realized by few.



3. THis is the ultimate book on the resting place of SOuth AFrica. Klerk details his childhood, explaining his roots in Afrikaner culture(thus the title 'THe Last Trek'). He talks about the war years and about the victory of the nationist party and the begginings of aprthied under Malan and Verwoerd. He also talks about the heady years of Botha(the imperial president). he explains the meaning of the word 'coloured' talking about the Cape coloureds and he talks about the Indian voting blocks. THis is a book about a great nation and its tormented past. Deeply divided and ethnically challenged South Africa is struggling today to escape its past. Rape and crime is higher then ever in modern day S. Africa. land invasions are the norm. Mr. De Klerk may be regretting what he accomplished but this book is the ultimate study of the ultimate questions concerning race.



4. This book gives great insight into the workings of the apartheid edifice from its inception to its collapse. De Klerk gives a candid account. He however comes accross as somewhat dismissive and patronizing to the point of insults to the black majority of his native country. The black people of South Africa and their struggles against an oppressive and openly racist system are simply brushed over as a footnote to the events that led to the collapse of apartheid. Injustices such as the ownership of 75 percent of the country by a minority that is barely 13 percent are glossed over as mere logistical problems.

   An important point to note on crime:

   While the crime rate in South Africa is unacceptably high, it is necessary to note that this has only become a major issue now that the white minority are exposed to the consequences of economic inequalities created under apartheid. The crime rate was kept artificially low during apartheid by segregation laws and a ruthless racist police force. From the black perspective, there is no significant increase in the crime rate. Indeed there has been a major reduction of state sanctioned violence against the black majority since the end of apartheid.

   This book is excellent if you want to look into the mind and workings of one of the most vile systems of governance ever conceived and implemented.




5. I think F W De Kelrk is a visionary in the sense that he forwsaw dire consequences for the Afrikaaners had they not relinquished power. The whole world watched in horror but did nothing when rwanda happened in 1994 the same could have been the case in South Africa had not De Kelrk swallowed his immense afrikaaner pride and said to himself "we ruled the country for 44 years and we were wrong, i either throw in the towel now and admit to the errors of my people or we go down the firy path of ethnic conflict (Bosnia 1992-1995) and possibly genocide (Rwanda 1994)" This was a nobel act in itself, but de Klerk has his faults, he was an admirer of Hendrik Verwoerd, the architech of modern aparthied and the Mengele of a latter day, in his youth. He was corrupt but so was Winnie Mandela, in one sense he was the best of a rather bad lot, next to the likes of John Vorster and P W Botha the man was a saint, but i would not go so far as to call him a savior for his people. He spared them from destruction but he was not able to do more. In todays S Africa AIDS, rape, violence, theft, and corrupt are rife, all are exposed to it equally now but i suppose nelson mandela has just as much to blame for that as does mr de kelerk

5 comments about Leap of Faith: Memoirs of an Unexpected Life.

1. I must admit; I didn't get very far, but this book is a self serving pack of lies by an apologist for the intransigence of the Arab world. For example, she refers to the "forced migration" of 1948 without ever mentioning that the ones doing the forcing were Arabs who promised their people that if they would get out they would "push the Jews into the sea". Nor does she mention the origin of the name "Palestinian" (hint: it is a Hebrew name).
   
   The saddest thing about the Arab world is that 1000 years ago they had the most advanced civilization on earth, and entirely due to problems of their own making they now preside over one giant hell hole.
   
   But if she came out and admitted this the Hashemite family would be in danger of losing their position of privilege in Transjordan.
   
   I would recommend that anyone who reads this book should also read "Warrior" by Ariel Sharon. At least he knows the history of Israel, Syria, and Egypt.



2. Here is a glimpse into Middle East history from someone who was there! My own family members have enjoyed reading it as much as I have; I think shall too!



3. Leap of Faith is interesting from the young all American becomes Queen standpoint. It really is amazing that a fairly regular young American woman gains the attention of the King of Jordan and becomes Queen.
   
   It is too bad she was not willing to be more real in her telling of a great story.
   
   The book ends up preaching about Queen Noor's view of the political world and quickly becomes tiresome and boring.
   
   It could have been a very exciting story given her exciting life but she had to go preach to us instead.



4. Unfortunately the autobiography is boring and somewhat distant and impersonal. Actually, overall the writing is uninspired and quite frankly, flat. Queen Noor, obviously a beautiful, intelligent, well-educated woman uses the book as a platform for spouting some pretty blatant untruths about the modern history of the Middle East. I guess I should have expected that, but it was disappointing nonetheless. I might have gritted my teeth and gotten past her politics if the love story was interesting. But it wasn't simply because the writing was so unemotional and disconnected. As I read the book, it was as if I could hear someone speaking in a monotone voice and it was almost sleep-inducing.



5. This biography is not great literature. It's centered in the most complex and violent regions of our times but rarely scratches the surface. Noor's diplomacy in describing people and events - always the high road, even in the midst of deceit and betrayal - is maddeningly constant and obscures rather than reveals. So what's to like about the book? It's an extraordinary story of a young western woman who embraces the east: it's people, culture, religion and thought. It's the story of her love for King Hussein, who in a world of the powerful, is largeless powerless but for his integrity in the struggle for peace. Her perspective, is that of the Palestinian Arab. Their voice needs to be heard. This book is a thoughtful start.

5 comments about God and Hillary Clinton: A Spiritual Life.

1. What is next? Paris Hilton book will be out on how she "really really" read the bible in jail?



2. Let's state this clearly from the beginning. Whether you embrace Hillary Clinton's politics or not, whether you embrace Hillary Clinton's beliefs or not, her beliefs are a critically important issue, for they deeply impact her political convictions.
   
   Here's another fact to clarify. The author, Paul Kengor, is not an apologist for Hillary Clinton. He has written similar books on Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. His aim in all three books is to write an accurate spiritual history of these three important political figures.
   
   In "God and Hillary Clinton," Kengor excels at revealing to readers the spiritual shaping factors that brought Hillary Clinton to embrace the beliefs and practices she does. If you want insight into who she is, what she believes, who influenced her personally, who she read, and why, then this is the book to read. What's more, Kengor's writing style, his first-hand interviews, and his access to letters and other documents, make this a well-written, creative, captivating history book--no easy task.
   
   Reviewer: Bob Kellemen, Ph.D., is the author of Beyond the Suffering: Embracing the Legacy of African American Soul Care and Spiritual Direction, Spiritual Friends, and Soul Physicians.



3. Paul Kengor's "God and Hillary Clinton: A Spiritual Life" is a fascinating look at the life of the former First Lady from the perspective of her religious beliefs and how these have changed from her childhood, through college and law school, her marriage to Bill Clinton, her time in Arkansas, Bill's presidency, Bill's indiscretions, her senate career, and to the present.
   
   Dr. Kengor is charitable in his assessment that Hillary has kept her Christian faith through all of these chapters in her life. One could easily surmise, however, that Hillary has long since traded her Christianity for a secular, Marxist, utopian "golden calf" to which she attaches a flimsy "Christian" label whenever it is politically expedient.
   
   In many ways, Hillary has been a victim of her circumstances. She was victimized by her youth minister, Don Jones, who began her indoctrination into Marxist Christianity. She was victimized by her parents' inattentiveness by failing to monitor what Jones was teaching her, and who later allowed her to attend left-wing havens like Wellesley and Yale, which completed her indoctrination. She was victimized by the rise of the counter-culture during her period of intellectual development which kept her from realizing the value of Western civilization and the intellectual vapidity of its detractors. But despite this, she is still ultimately responsible for becoming the secular, power-hungry, political opportunist that she is today.
   
   A spiritual biography is an interesting approach on the life of arguably the most prominent politician in the last two decades. Kengor's book paints a tragic life (though I'm sure Hillary herself is completely unaware what a tragedy it is.) It's not the tragedy of the hurts suffered on account of her husband and her critics. The real tragedy is the loss of her soul by the seduction of power.



4. I am not especially taken by Clinton politics and their skewed code of ethics, though I am not at odds with some of their policies. Therefore, I have no deep axe to grind, no axe which would hinder an honest and objective review.
   
   However, I must say, I simply do not believe these other reviewers to be impartial. They're probably either Clinton hacks, or from the publisher. These reviews are just glowing with adoration.
   
   First, I gave this book three stars on the merit of history. Her formative years, particularlly, which is insightful. Do not expect any objectivity from Paul Kengor, however - this is what he does for a living! He writes fluff-pieces for high political figures. This is just a book to let people know that Hillary has "real" faith.
   
   But where has Hillary's faith guided her ethically? Apparently this faith is not enough to quell her "crush-all" ambition, nor her Evida-like, self-structured persona. I am still left pondering the lives that were put into foreclosure and turmoil during the travel staff firings. I am left contemplating her lie under oath, which was ruled so, in the final investigation in 2000. How can you lie about not knowing about these firings? It is a very sad thing to constantly insult the intellect of voters. But she has, continuously. Some faith.
   
   We know about her "faith" soley from the image she has spent a life time creating. And, you know, I am not terribly mad about that. All politicians do it. Just wish it weren't so obvious.
   
   This book offers us some insight on her childhood faith, just don't take it at face value. Hillary isn't the same person she was 40 years ago.



5. Kengor's books on God are very good, but this is the first person whose Christian view does not harmonize with her political actions. The most glaring is her support of partial birth abortion. She is prepared to kill my child at full term, murder and dismember him. Does she feel that 8,5 months after the Annuciation, Our Lady could have said "I have changed my mind"? Her view is clearly hostile to all biblical teaching and amounts to what Reagan calls "the second oldest religion=you will be God's." Is she God, or is God, God?

5 comments about A G-Man's Life: The FBI, Being 'Deep Throat,' And the Struggle for Honor in Washington.

1. This book gave me a much better understanding of Watergate and what went on behind the scenes. Gave me a greater respect for the FBI - but I doubt that it is now what it was then.
   
   This book did not sugar coat Felt. He devoted his life to the FBI at the expense of neglecting his wife and children. However, he had such a drive and tenacity to fulfill his dream that his wife would most likely not have been happy with a husband who doted on her and gave up his dream. His life was full and meaningful - he truly got to live his dream.
   
   The book gives the facts and leaves one wondering if some of the things Felt done were truly out of concern and his desire for justice to prevail; or if he was acting out of disappointment because he didn't get the position he so wanted. It was always passed on to someone else who was certainly not deserving or capable - a political choice to promote the promoter. Of course, this would be a debatable subject. I come to the conclusion though that Felt was hurt and disappointed, but that he was a man of honor and did what he felt must be done to stop the corruption and protect the people.
   
   This book portrays an excellent picture of the great FBI leader, J Edgar Hoover. In fact, I received as much insight and knowledge about Hoover as I ddi about Felt and that was sort of an extra. We see that Hoover was like Felt, totally dedicated to his career and demanded the same from his agents.
   
   I feel the information in this book is something that can be relied on coming from someone like Felt. I don't believe he would lie about anything that was in this book.
   
   The things revealed about Martin Luther King, Jr. were important to me. We have heard many rumours, but considering the great opposition Dr. King went though, one always wonders if there is any truth. However, I feel now that Dr. King certainly did have sexual weaknesses that we have heard about and he did associate with the communist leaders. However, the book portrays it in an open way. Just because he was friends with them does not mean he was for the communist movement. Through reading this book, I feel he was searching for a better way of life for his people; the socialistic way is so appealing because it claims to make the common people equal. It lures and gives a false hope. This makes me even more appreciate America, though not perfect, we still have hope. But oh how we need good leadership to make it possible.
   
   This book really makes you stop and think about some impportant issues of that time and of our time now. An eye opener if you read between the lines.
   
   I think this book portrays Mr. Felt as unbiased, he was concerned about all people, justice for all. He tried to be fair and compassionate as portrayed early on in the book where he let the guilty wife stay with her small children as he took the husband in for robbery. This is really an insight to his inner character and I think this stayed with him through his career and life.
   
   I think the book could have flowed a little better, at times it was hard to follow. But perhaps covering so much diversity, this was the only way. I still give it a 5, a good read.



2. I've been a student of Watergate for years. Maybe in part because I was born in October 1973, and I enjoy asking people who was Vice President the day I was born (answer: no-one). Maybe also in part because ten years ago I picked up "The Haldeman Diaries" off the remainder rack at Barnes & Noble, and then started collecting all the Watergate autobiographies still in print (yes, that includes your own, Jeb Stuart Magruder).
   
   I never really had an intelligent guess as to who Deep Throat actually was. When Mark Felt's name was released by his family last year, I finally understood why -- he's only a tangential part of the books I read, not mentioned by name in the Woodward/Bernstein books, not mentioned even in "The Haldeman Diaries" or the Oliver Stone "Nixon" movie, both of which fixated on J. Edgar Hoover and Clyde Tolson, Felt's immediate FBI superiors.
   
   When I purchased "A G-Man's Life", I thought I'd bought my last Watergate book. I was wrong. This book necessarily leaves lots of questions unanswered, primarily because Felt is now essentially senile and then, according to my reading of co-author John O'Connor's portions of the back, he took no active role in the writing. "G-Man" is drawn mostly from Felt's long-forgotten FBI memoir, and supplemented by unpublished writings and interviews with family members (who learned Felt's secret only at the same time as did family friend O'Connor).
   
   Oddly, even the unpublished writings do not acknowledge that Felt was Deep Throat (hence the odd parsing of his phrase last year, "I'm the guy they used to call Deep Throat"). O'Connor does explain this gap in two different ways: first, he points out where Felt didn't identify with the Deep Throat character portrayed in the movie; and second, he prints his speculation that Woodward's Deep Throat was a composite of which Felt was only a part. That speculation, however, is not echoed in Woodward's own "Secret Man", a book about Felt written before the public announcement.
   
   Felt's own writing, about his rise through the FBI ranks, well reflects the fatigue of hard work with the rewards of a job well done. This is a more than adequate crime memoir, with lots of decent anecdotes along the way. The FBI is not publicly regarded the way it used to be, so "A G-Man's Life" is not only an effective period piece, but a reminder of what good a governmental organization can achieve when motivated solely by the public interest.
   
   The toll that Felt's career took on his own family is mentioned not at all in the memoir chapters-- that is left to O'Connor to describe in the epilogue. O'Connor, whose daughter went to college with Felt's grandson, has become a family friend and is thus in the best position to write objectively about these struggles. Where Felt's own writing also seems naive in retrospect is his celebration of Hoover the man -- there are tens of thousands of pages of well-documented books offering contrary evidence -- and also in his take on the New Left, the obsession that ultimately brought down his FBI career. Whether the New Left was a Communist-infiltrated organization that actively conspired with foreign governments to overthrow the United States is not a question answered by Felt, although he does try.
   
   The aftermath of Felt's authorization of "black bag jobs" against the Weather Underground resulted in his conviction in federal court -- after a trial in which Richard Nixon testified in his favor. Felt's principled refusal to come forward as Deep Throat in the midst of his trial postponed his receiving the accolades he so richly deserved. The question remains... was Felt's three decades of secrecy worth the wait?



3. In 2005 after nearly 33 years of secrecy, William Mark Felt, retired associate director of the FBI, revealed his true identity as Deep Throat, the secret source behind the Watergate case's public exposure - and in A G-Man's Life, Felt tells his own story of how the Watergate case grew to create personal challenges, isolation, and the dilemma of whether his duty as an FBI official superseded his duty to expose the truth. Both college-level collections strong in social and political American history and general-interest libraries strong in true crime and autobiography will find this an absorbing discussion.
   
   Diane C. Donovan
   California Bookwatch



4. I have given a three as it seems that the book we all clamour for is like "Deep Throat" himself was.
   A secret hidden away brilliantly.
   The same will apply to the book as Felt ages and unfortunately already is a man who is quite sick,with poor memory etc.
   I believe that the family should come first and that the realisation that Mark Felt cannot tell the story as many would like it should also be respected,
   As for one comment about this being the "last of the Watergate books then".
   Nothing could be further from the truth,the American public and their unquenchable thirst for scandal and hearing scandal at such a level is something that will always grow no matter how strange and wild the premise of future books where there is literary gold you have to mine it until it collapses in on itself and then pick through the rubble again.
   Ian.



5. 
   Stuck in the middle of possibly the greatest scandal in the history of the government's Executive Branch, Mark Felt was more responsible for the destruction of the Watergate/White House cover-up than any other person in Washington. This book gives a great account of Felt's illustrious FBI career and clarify's his motives behind the secret meetings with Bob Woodward of the Washington Post. This is a "must-read" for everyone who was sruck by the Watergate mystique!!!

1 comments about The Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt (American Presidency Series).

1. If someone wants to get a one volume account on this exciting presidency, look no further. The author, Lewis Gould, shows how TR developed further the modern presidency, which began under his predecessor McKinley. One of our most fascinating presidents, there's a wonderful chapter on Roosevelt the Administrator. Excellent bibliography too!

No comments about Panegyric, Volumes 1 and 2.

5 comments about Four Trials.

1. Although I am both a fan of John Edwards and legal books (well, fiction, mostly), I didn't read this book for quite some time. I imagined, as I'm sure many other people did, that it would be a matter-of-fact review of four cases in only a legal aspect and, quite honestly, boring.
   
   I'm so glad I gave this book a chance, though, because it is none of those things. It is about four of his cases, but it is also so much more. The cases have real human interest appeal, and Edwards starts off as almost the underdog (with people even then poking fun at his hair). All four trials are riveting, and I could not put down this book. Bits of Edwards' personal and family life and interspersed with the cases -- growing up and moving with his blue-collar family, meeting his wife Elizabeth (who, from what we read, hasn't changed a bit!), his children. If you like Edward's speaking style -- which I do -- it's very clear in this book.
   
   Overall, whether you like Edwards or not, whether you like legal reading or not, this is so much more. It's a wonderful read that you won't be able to put down, and I cannot recommend it enough.



2. I contributed to his campaign in 2004 and received this book included with my contribution. I hate this book!
   
   He glorifies how he sued Doctors out of the water.
   
   I know many doctors that do as much as they can to help people and lawyers like Edwards are a reason some doctors(who are a little guy on their own) have gone to hell.
   
   Let's do some math!
   
   Let's say a Surgeon makes $450,000/year
   Uncle Sam takes about half which is $225,000
   
   A doctor who just lost a malpractice suit, such as a surgeon, will look to pay $150 to $200,000 per year on malpractice insurance. ($225,000 minus $200,000 = $25,000)
   
   Wow! Many people make more than some surgeons! Thanks to Edwards-like lawyers.



3. Edwards does some self-promotion in this book, and pays tribute to the son he lost. But the book is mostly a blow-by-blow account of trials in which he helped the "little guy" stand up to wealthy, powerful interests. The writing is not particularly great (and Edwards had help), but the content is compelling. I gave the book to my doctor, who has an innate dislike of trial lawyers - still waiting for his review! Bottom line: if I suffered a life-altering injury through someone else's negligence or malfeasance, I'd want a guy like John Edwards in my corner.



4. is abundantly evident in the pages of this book. We forget that among all the junk lawsuits in our society, there are some that truly call for justice. Senator Edwards wasn't afraid to take on those whose interests called for subverting the legal system by victimizing people.
   
   In this compelling book, you will read things that will surprise, shock, and sadden you. But through it all, you will be impressed by a man who used his skills as an attorney and his convictions as a man to right wrongs, and be a voice for those without any voice.
   
   I had the distinct pleasure of meeting Senator Edwards and I can tell you that he is sincere and dedicated. It was with sadness that I watched him have to suspend his Presidential race in 2008. He would have made one of the greatest Presidents America ever had.
   
   Get this book and read about an attorney that not only has character, but the type of values sadly missing in so many in his profession.



5. I read the book when it first came out, and I too was impressed. It's only in the last week or so that my blood runs cold when I think of how this "man of integrity" was fooling around on his cancer-stricken wife despite presenting his family as the centerpiece of his presidential campaign. But the book itself is of value, there is no question...detailing how important it is to stand up for justice, particularly for the disinfranchised. Would that it was written by someone of character and integrity...someone we could genuinely admire...rather than this charlatan who, with breathtaking audacity, threw it all away for a few romps in the hay. Sad, sad, sad...and how his deceased son, Wade, would have been shocked by his father's treatment of his mother! But the book itself is well-written and researched - and is a call to arms!