5 comments about Work Hard, Study...and Keep Out of Politics! Adventures and Lessons from an Unexpected Public Life.

1. Mr. Baker writes a wonderful book. One that those of us who don't much about the enter working of polictics can understand. He has lots of interesting inside info as well. a must read



2. Memoirs are one of the best sources of influencing oneself on "best practices". James Baker is universally acknowledged as one of the most talented and effective public servants to serve at the pleasure of his President, in this case, Presidents (Ford, Reagan, Bush 41, and special projects for Bush 43). In my humble opinion, only Clinton's Treasury Secretary Richard Rubin approaches the success Baker had serving under Reagan and Bush 41 in the modern era.
   
   Because Baker previously wrote a tome on diplomacy, The Politics of Diplomacy, I was hoping this book would focus more on the general principles Baker employed that yielded such successful results. Unfortunately, besides his "five Ps" stressing a daily discipline to focus and prepare, Baker applies a characteristically humble approach that yields a lot of great stories, but very little lecturing on his keys to success.
   
   I recommend the book as an extremely interesting perspective on modern American history from a very unique perspective or as a guide to an improved perspective on why Reagan and Bush 41 were such successful Presidents in areas Baker supported. I do not recommend this book if you are looking to understand how someone like Baker with little to no training or experience in technical subjects like economics and statesmanship could be so successful as Secretary of Treasury and Secretary of State.
   
   Here are some interesting tidbits that makes for a good American history lesson:
   
   How Baker would meld political objectives with popular policy initiatives - an example was how Baker fought Kissinger and Cheney from within the Ford Administration to protect America's textile trade while they fought to free up trade with China. The Baker vs. Kissinger chess match on manipulating the President and policy is a great story on how internal fights are played within the same team.
   
   Baker supports David Gergen and Lou Cannon's claims that Reagan was much more moderate in his policy actions than his rhetoric; Baker labels it "pragmaticism" with several interesting examples through-out the book, especially in regards to Reagan's ability to reach across the table to reach a moderate solution, Tip O'Neill and Gorbechev being two examples.
   
   Baker critiques Richard Rubin's fiscal policy at Treasury. Since Rubin is acknowledged as one the most successful Treasury Secretaries since Alexander Hamilton, it's rare and beneficial to hold his record to the light by one of his predecessors. Here is Rubin's excellent memoir: In an Uncertain World: Tough Choices from Wall Street to Washington
   
   While you will get an honest assessment that the condition of the country has not been well served during the Bush 43 era, you will get very little criticism from Baker as he continues to serve Bush 43 on special projects, the latest being the Iraq Study Group.
   
   As an American history book - buy it, as a lesson in leadership - pass, which is our loss.



3. This is a political biography of someone you would think of as political. Most politicos ran for office (which Baker did), which is how we know of them. Baker's service to the United States was via appointment, and he continues to serve. The biography reads quickly, so you have the background, but not necessarily all the details.
   
   The narrative is from his perspective. As such the reader will assume that most points of view will be Republican, to reflect his party affiliation. However, as he points out in more than a couple of places, he "came of age" in an era where it wasn't "us versus them." He explains that it was acceptable to disagree with someone politically, but this didn't prevent having a drink with that person later. Former Speaker Tip O'Neill of the Democratic Party was one such example. Even though he disagreed on many issues with President Reagan and Baker, they were still friends.
   
   The recurring name throughout the book is that of George Bush. Baker and the 41st President of the United States have been friends for many years, and their paths cross repeatedly. Through the Reagan and Bush 41 presidencies, these two worked in the administration during times of great change (the fall of the Soviet Union, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the stock market drop of 1987, etc.)
   
   Baker had run for elected office in Texas, but did not win. His service to the country was as Reagan's chief of staff and later secretary of the treasury, as well as Bush 41's secretary of state. He also worked in the campaigns of Bush and President Ford. Through the book, he explains who he worked with and what they did. Remembering that time period, his perspective in the behind the scenes look was very interesting.
   
   I would recommend this for anyone wanting to get the behind the scenes look of well over a decade of public service for the United States. In between names and events, there are many lessons to be learned.



4. I really enjoyed this book and I learned a lot, too. This book is more than the story of James Baker's life and career. It is also part history, taking you inside of the White House of four presidents and offers great lessons on how to successfully negotiate with people. I always liked James Baker as a member of President Reagan's "Troika" and I loved reading about the inner workings of the Reagan White House. But, I learned a lot about the campaigns and the Ford and Bush administrations, too. I have to negotiate with people at work all of the time and I'm not great at it, but thanks to this book, I'm going to be better at it. I also enjoyed reading about James Baker's wife and children. It was sad to read of the loss of his first wife, but inspiring to read about how he was able to survive through the help of his friends and family. I also enjoyed reading about the 2000 election recount in Florida. What a story that is! James Baker comes across as a very down to earth man and I learned a lot from reading his story. This is a good book!



5. Mr. Baker is by all accounts a man of both high talent and great decency. The country would be well served if more folks of his capacity worked in the public interest.
   
   As an admirer, I was left frustrated. For someone who so faithfully advocates "preparation", he tells very little about the specific preparation that propelled him to success in so many different environments - the law practice, campaigns, public service in the White House, Treasury, Secretary of State and beyond . His special skills seem to include becoming a trusted advisor to the powerful, negotiating deals, cultivating media relationships, ingratiating himself with established interests globally. If Mr. Baker's goal here was really to teach and mentor, rather than to sponsor a puff piece aimed at pre-empting history, would he not have discussed his approach to negotiation? Would he not have delved more deeply into the organization skills that resulted in his being hired by Reagan, even though he had worked for Ford and Bush, Reagan's political opponents? Would he not have discussed how specifically he struck the balance between disclosure and protect his client's interests via the media? As a strategist at the pinnacle, surely his hard work during all those six-and-one-half day weeks yielded some insights he could share.
   
   It has been said that political biographies often neglect to address the means of ascent. This is certainly true of Mr. Baker's book. It reads more like a stringing together of information already in the public domain than a "revelatory" memoir. Let's hope he will try again.

1 comments about A Radical Worker in Tsarist Russia: The Autobiography of Semen Ivanovich Kanatchikov.

1. This short book is the autobiographical story of Mr. Kanatchikov prior to and during the Russian Revolution of 1917. The protagonist is a blue-collar worker living in the city of St. Petersburg. His experiences at his factory job and his poverty help to fuel his frustration with the system. He begins going to meetings of the Communist Party and other outlawed organizations. Soon his attendance increases to participation, organization, and propaganda. Meanwhile, he moves from job to job as each job he goes to fires him when they discover his activities. The book climaxes with violent protests against the czar, and finally revolution. The book gives a good sense of what it was like to be alive at that point. The author describes his feelings, his words, and his actions as he transforms from passive worker to active protester. The book gives a good inside view of how the Russian Revolution occurs, and should be read by those who seek to understand communism, its roots, and Russian history.

5 comments about Mitt Romney: The Man, His Values and His Vision.

1. Mitt Romney could well be our next president, and this book explains all the ins and outs of this fascinating man. The authors answer the tough questions about religion and flip-flopping and paint a realistic picture of the man who might be president. They aren't simply cheerleaders, nor are they rabid Republicans or cheerleaders. Not only did this book help me decide who to vote for, it was fast and fun to read.



2. With a title like "Mitt Romney: The Man, His Values and His Vision", I expected that, like Mitt's values, I would be able to pick and choose them (or at least they would adapt to their audience).
   
   Instead this book is another lightweight "cheerleaders" book that may as well have been written by Mitt's enormous spin team.
   
   Want a serious look at Mitt - look elsewhere. Want to reinforce your beliefs that Mitt is the most amazing guy on the planet (well post 2002 after he changed all his views) then grab this book now!!!



3. It's too bad that the person most able to challenge the Dhimmicratic Party in the next election is being judged solely on his religion. Ability should count a little in a presidential candidate you would think. They tried to do the same thing to John Kennedy. They said he'd take his orders from the Pope. (Yes, they really said that!)
   
   Political or policy issues are so multifaceted that if a candidate discusses the complexities, the products of today's education (?) system think that he is flip-flopping. With this type of thinking, the person who gets elected will be the person who says least or who mouths only platitudes. Or someone too dumb to know the complexities. This may be how we got our present incumbent. And it will probably give us our next incumbent.
   
   Too bad, because America desperately needs a capable person of integrity. Romney may be that person. Forget religion. Think politics. Think survival. We need an intelligent person in the White House.



4. This book is well written and is a quick read into Mitt Romney: Who he is, his family, his life, his business career and his views on how and where to take the USA as President.
   
   For any American with the right to vote and not much time on their hands to research candidates this is a must read.I also liked the fact it was written by a Mormon & an Evangelist and this gave a very 'realistic' view of how Mitt Romney would be like as US President.
   
   These days the press are hounding down on Mitt mainly beacuse of his religion. Do yourself a favour and buy this book and read about the 'real' facts. If you truly want the US economy to improve and for you and your family to have more opportunities & money in your pocket Mitt Romney is the man that can create a prosperous field for you to play in. Do your due diligence, switch the TV off and read this book, then decide for yourself!



5. I thought this book was well researched and interesting. However, I didn't feel compelled to support Romney afterwards. So, it suceeded in it's goal of providing basic information, but it did not inspire me.

5 comments about Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative.

1. After hearing about this book a great deal from many people, I finally had to give it a read. What I got was a mostly well written account about how Brock gave the neo-con movement exactly what they wanted in terms of what can only be called propaganda. Brock does a good job in exposing the oft-ridiculed "vast right-wing conspiracy".
   
   But it makes a boring read at times, what with long lists of people and publications. And it seems just a bit self-serving at times, like he is trying to say, "Oh, how bad I was to do all this, but I was very good at it." And, after all, he does say exactly what I, as a liberal person, want to hear about those on the right who keep insisting that people who believe like me are traitors.
   
   I respect Mr. Brocks conversion to the left, and I like his work with mediamatters.org, but I am not sure I plan to read any more of his books.



2. In his 1950 study of the authoritarian personality, Theodor Adorno constructed a political-psychological profile of people he called "pseudo-conservatives." These were people who called themselves conservatives but in truth adhered to political agendas that betrayed the ideals of individual freedom and free markets. Pseudo-conservatives were motivated by hate, fear, and power, not the desire to conserve or guarantee liberty. A few years later, the eminent historian Richard Hofstadter appropriated Adorno's term in describing what he called "the paranoid style in American politics." In Adorno and Hofstadter's day, this paranoid style of pseudo-conservativism was still in its embryonic state, personified by the rantings of Joseph McCarthy but still far from being the game plan for the Republican Party as a whole. David Brock's Blinded by the Right chronicles how this movement slithered its way into power long before anyone had heard of Karl Rove, whose name isn't even listed in the index.
   
   Blinded by the Right amazingly combines the political history of a loathsome political movement with the personal story of a sympathetic individual who found himself at the center of that movement. Always an idealist among opportunists, Brock's entrée to conservatism was admirable enough, as he was a former Kennedy liberal who was turned off by Berkeley protest-ologists who simply shouted down their adversaries, thus betraying the cause of free speech that had galvanized the campus in the glory years of the 1960s. But those ideals quickly dissolved into an us-versus-them battle which was motivated by a hatred for liberal enemies more than anything else. Ironically, Brock and his colleagues had much more in common with late 60s revolutionaries like the Weathermen, with their constantly escalating rhetoric of destroying the establishment, and Stalinists in the Communist Party, who enforced the party line by threatening dissenters with the charge that they were helping "the other team."
   
   Blinded by the Right is an essential chronicle of a political movement and a historical era, but somehow it is even more than that. Its personal narrative of a young person's rise to power and fame, followed by descent into disillusionment and depression, is gripping enough for Hollywood. Brock came out as a homosexual while he was in college but then shoved himself back into the closet as he ascended to celebrity status on the Right, whose agenda became increasingly homophobic after the collapse of communism left them without the enemy they had depended on for so long. Brock now sees his willingness to parrot right-wing ideology as part of his attempt to fit in with the movement when he secretly knew didn't, and he sees the vitriol that he spewed in his writing as a subconscious expression of his own self-hatred. In fact, Brock offers many penetrating insights into the psychology of his right-wing former colleagues, and for the most part they appear to be a miserable bunch prone to textbook cases of projection.
   
   Brock's break from the right corresponded with his personal move toward self-acceptance. It is heroic act of liberation that sometimes made me want to stand up and cheer for him, but it was clearly a journey full of pain. His liberation proceeds in stages, with Brock initially portraying himself as a victim, and then only later coming to grips with his own complicity and eagerness to serve the movement. Changed but not bitter, Brock comes out the other side as a very wise man who can see clearly now only because he is able to accept himself, his past, and his imperfections. I hope we'll see more books like this in the future coming from the current throng of right-wingers, but I'm not holding my breath, because this required a ton of courage and compassion, and that's precisely what this movement lacks most.



3. There isn't much I can say about this book that hasn't already been said in other favorable reviews here. All I'll add is that even if you allow for the zeal of Brock's re-converson to liberal prinicples and some bitterness towards his former conservative and neocon mentors and paymasters, there is much in this book that rings frighteningly true. Most fascinating is Brock's inside look at the anti-Clinton smear machine of which he was part - and which, no doubt, is warming up for 2008. Arm yourself with knowledge that you'll need if Hillary runs for President. Read this book.



4. I wish I had read this sooner but I had shied away from it because I figured that Mr. Brock was a David Horowitz in reverse (and we know what an opportunistic scum bag Horowitz is). But this is an important and authentic work from an insider who shows us exactly how the neo-nazi, neocon "conservatives" took over and nearly destroyed our American nation (we are a nation, not a "homeland" or "fatherland"). We must take back our country in November (we started that process in the 2006 elections) and be rid of the Republican war criminals but that is not enough: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet, Coulter/Limbaugh (Goebbels), and those already convicted (Libby, Abramoff, Delay, Cunningham, Foley, Craig, etc.) need to be brought before a duly appointed Tribunal to answer for their crimes against humanity and particularly their crimes against the American people (including our brave soldiers and my friend Pat Tillman, who they killed). Richard Clarke could be the chief witness for the prosecution. We need more jails to house the corporate crooks.
   I had the privilege of meeting Barry Goldwater and his wonderful wife Peggy when I lived in Arizona in the early 90's. Senator Goldwater was an honorable, real conservative and he was appalled by the Falwells, Robertsons, Gingriches, etc. If you consider yourself a principled conservative, you must read this book and help us remove the cancers from our society that Mr. Brock so ably describes. Through it all, I have believed there are more good people than evil people in our nation ("the better angels of our nature", as Lincoln said): some start out evil like Brock but then their human heart and conscience kicks in; let's kick out every last slime bag with an (R) by his or her name this November and rebuild our nation.



5. Brock is a gay former flame-throwing GOP-"insider" conservative writer who increasingly felt "like a Jew in Hitler's army" due to growing Republican gay-bashing; because of that discomfort, Brock repented his conservative screeds and returned to his liberal roots. En route, readers also learn that neither Brock nor many others didn't understand the supposed rationale behind many of their positions (they just toed the "party line"), and that integrity, fair play, civility were anachronisms even to some high-placed GOP judges and other leaders.
   
   Brock also credibly presents the rationale for Justice Thomas' nomination (would split Democrat opposition due to some representing areas with high black populations), and why his accusers were probably correct (eg. after a later expose, Thomas privately admitted being into porn), confesses to frequently writing mindless drivel (even more surprising was the sometimes support of George Will and New York Times book reviewers), and provides first-hand documentation (names, dollar amounts) of vendettas financed against the Clinton's, etc.
   
   Bottom Line: Republicans would undertake any manner of illegality to pursue perceived Clinton (and others) illegality - this was justified by their pursuit of a "higher good." Lies and hypocrisy - no problem!
   
   An excellent book!

2 comments about American Heroine: The Life and Legend of Jane Addams.

1. Jane Addams was a remarkable woman. This book is the best biography written of her life. She was a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in her later life. Her liberal views of American society are covered thoroughly by this author in his chapters of her early work at Hull House, and her later work for world peace. A must read book for every woman, because Jane Addams was truly an American woman.



2. This truly outstanding and detailed biography of Jane Addams surveys the founder of Hull House, a social reformer who was one of the most admired women in American history. American Heroine recounts her life, work and ideas, providing chapters which go into far more depth and detail than most reviews of her life, probing the philosophy behind her works and the atmosphere of her times.

5 comments about Napoleon Bonaparte: A Life.

1. Alan Schom is very vocal in praising Napoleon as military tactician. He finds him audacious and personally brave, though often quite lucky. There is absolutely nothing else positive to say about him and he says alot. There frankly isn't too much positive one can say about Napoleon but what makes Schom's book unique is the vitriolic attack on his personality, detailing several obscure episodes that expose him as an awkward seducer of his friends' wives, a cheater of parlour games with a boorish social sense. He includes a medical appendix where he amateurishly argues that Napoleon was psychotic. Brutal megalomaniac? OK, but incapable of feeling genuine love or remorse with no friendships? Schom's accounts of his tolerance of duplicitous subordinates, his wife's lover, love for Josephine and Duroc and many others-belies his own assertions of psychosis. His coverage of military matters is decent, but better realized in the work of specialized accounts like Chandlers' and Eltings'.



2. Do I think that books critical of Napoleon are of absolutely no value? Not at all, but any author who writes such a book should at least present all of the facts, and not just give the half of the story that supports his thesis. Alan Schom definitely distorts the facts and stacks the deck in favor of his biases.
   The most glaring example is his treatment of the battle of Austerlitz, where Napoleon demolished the combined armies of Austria and Russia. Schom gleefully tells us how Napoleon instructed his troops to take no Russian prisoners-to kill every Russian in their path. "Seldom had Napoleon shown himself to be so vicious," says Schom.
   As anyone who has read anything about Austerlitz knows, in the earlier battles of the Austerlitz campaign, the advancing French had been fired upon from behind by wounded Russians; it was actually a quite common occurrence. Napoleon's order was thus not motivelessly malignant; he simply was sick and tired of seeing his troops shot in the back. Schom not only fails to give us this background information;he also fails to mention the thousands of Austrian prisoners taken in the battle. Napoleon had no reason to order the execution of wounded and captured Austrians since they didn't shoot his men in the back!
   Schom also posits, without offering any evidence, that Napoleon murdered Admiral Villeneuve(who actually committed suicide after being defeated at Trafalgar) and Marshal Berthier(accidental fall from a window). He takes the very complex individual who was Napoleon and turns him into a one dimensional cartoon character. Napoleon was much closer to being an early nineteenth century enlightened despot than the twentieth century genocidal dictator Schom portrays him as.
   The only thing that saves this book from being a one star waste of ink and paper is Schom's ability as a writer. If you've never read anything about Napoleon, then I suggest you balance this book with the more favorable biography by Vincent Cronin.



3. This is a sweeping, almost lush, detailed and comprehensive story of one of the greatest Military and political leaders and thinkers of world history, told with great skill, sensitivity but without sentimentality and without pulling any punches: We get to see Napoleon in the raw, warts and all. One gets the impression that Mr. Schom has lost his taste for the heroic image of Napoleon and has replaced it with a more realistic one based on "deeply honed" research into his life.
   
   Nowhere have I ever seen such an ambitious project pulled off so well. It covers Napoleon's life from cradle to grave. It covers his thinking during all of his various military campaigns, the military triumphs and the strategic and tactical failures. It covers Napoleon's brooding reaction to his mistakes and his elation to his foreordained victories. It covers the conflicts and romps with all of his wives and his many female consorts. It covers the feuds with his family and with his general staff, his personality flaws and his lack of sensitivity to his soldiers and to the great harm his campaigns did to the peoples of the lands he conquered. We get a front row seat into the mind and the actions of one of the foremost heroes of Western History.
   
   Altogether this is a thoroughly engrossing although not the most balanced book; yet it will endure. There may be better books "out there" on Napoleon, but I doubt if there are any as complete as this one. We must be grateful to Alan Schom for the prodigious effort exerted to produce this masterpiece of a tome. It is the one book on Napoleon that is a must read. Five Stars and Amen.



4. THis is a truly bad biography of a seemingly masochistic writer who strongly dislikes his subject. The author suggests to be more diligent with sources, thus justifying his particularly negative view of Napoleon. However, even from the citations he inserts into the text, it may be gleaned that these sources are far from giving an objective view. Occasionally it is quite unclear when the statements were given - in particular in the case of Bourrienne, this is interesting: Bourrienne tried very hard to obtain the approval of the new masters after Napoleon's downfall, and he had a clear personal interest in speaking badly of Napoleon. This is clearly different from an immediate, unbiased first-hand accord of circumstances from within a given situation. Schom nonetheless tries to convince his readers that these statements are without guile and given without a particular aim - while they were often given much later out of memory, with the clear aim in mind to debase the fallen emperor, and to cleanse himself, Bourrienne, from any negative role he may have played. This use of sources can by no means qualify as diligent, in spite of all the allegedly well-researched details.



5. This book offers a tremendous amount of detail and information and that makes it an ok work. However, the problem with it is author's bias and an outright, unconcealed animosity toward Napoleon. In general I am against historians making moral value judgments in their books, however, if the do it than the bare minimum which we as readers should get is balance. In this work Schom essentially highlights all the bad traits which marked Napoleon and by skipping over the faults of other historical figures he makes Napoleon look like a 19th. century Hitler, as someone already said. While he goes into gruesome detail to explain the problems of 19th. century battlefield medicine in the French army he never mentions the fact that other armies were not all that great either, and when English loose thousands soldiers to disease as they did when they tried to take Antwerp, he does not describe the details of those 4,000 gruesome deaths and does not blame the surgeons, the lack of medical staff and equipment etc. in the British army.

4 comments about Heist: Superlobbyist Jack Abramoff, His Republican Allies, and the Buying of Washington.

1. This was a highly entertaining and readable account of the Abramoff scandal. Before I started reading it, I had a pretty vague understanding of the whole affair. I had obviously followed the story in the newspapers but tended to get lost in all the details of the intricate plot. Stone does a good job of explaining Abramoff's activities in a clear way that renders the affair understandable even to those with no prior knowledge. For the most part, Stone's voice is fairly unbiased. He presents the facts and lets them speak for themselves. He mostly refrains from making moral judgments of Abramoff and his collaborators until the last chapter, in which he situates the scandal within the larger topic of corruption in Washington. If I had to make a criticism, it might be that the author is sometimes repetitive, as he had a habit of citing certain facts and making certain arguments multiple times. Overall, however, I would recommend this book to anybody looking to gain a better understanding of the Abramoff affair. It makes for a pretty entertaining read at points, mainly just because the affair itself is so interesting and populated by such a colorful cast of characters. As far as I know, this is the only book-length treatment of the Abramoff scandal.



2. What a story! A classic tale of corruption in Washington, DC. I was both entertained and educated by the author's summary of this complicated series of events. He introduces the characters, the situation, and describes the "action" in a respectable narrative style.
   
   Sometimes I pay almost no attention to the Federal Government. The unveiling of Abramoff, DeLay, Ralph Reed, and the other villains is this drama passed me by. This book has filled me in admirably. Stone's choice of level of detail seemed just right.
   
   I take off one star for the few places where one wishes the editor had made the author clean up unnecessary repetition, and for the general lack of color. The style is that of a journalist, not a novelist.
   
   A fine job of reducing a complicated story to a brisk, informative read.



3. This book didnt go far enough of this neo-conman's connection to Dubja "00's" decade of greed; similar to the gopper "80's" greed. I wonder if the government will take back Casino Jack money he stole from the Indians and return it? or will the government let Casino Jack keep the Indian's money when they get out of Club-Fed, like Michael Milken and Ivan Bolsky.



4. Peter Stone's first-rate investigative reporting -- done over several years -- is a deftly handled take by an experienced Washington reporter on Jack Abramoff's scandalous activities. The thing that makes this book stand out is the incredible amount of original reporting that went into it. The tale is also well-written and not overly hyped. It doesn't have to be. It is told in delicious, understated detail that could easily be turned into a movie script.

5 comments about Enemy Combatant: My Imprisonment at Guantanamo, Bagram, and Kandahar.

1. Moazzam Begg's story is basically this: despite all the coincidences and all the evidence of Begg's involvement in al-Qaida and jihadist movements in general, he claims of innocence and toruture are to be taken at face value. Oh, sure, he and lilttle Tokyo Rose co-author write a excellent piece of fiction; dramatic, poetic, moving and completely full of horse manure.
   
   Never mind that he joined a jihadi street gang, "The Lynx" as a teen. Forget about the fact that he was arrested in 1994 after a raid and a search of his home found night vision goggles, a bulletproof vest, and extremist Islamic literature, because after all, it was just a "hobby". Forget that he has traveled to every jihadist cause celeb battle field: Chechnya, Bosnia, and Afghanistan, and that he also admits to financially supporting these causes, because after all he "swears" that he never took part in active combat. Forget that during another arrest in 2000 on a raid of the Maktabah Al Ansar bookshop, his computer was loaded with encrypted files, because the judge said he did not have to provide Scotland Yard with the decrypted information. Forget that wire transfer forms to an account of his in Pakistan were found by US and British special forces in an al-Qaida training camp near Jalalabad.
   
   And my favorite: the only reason he went to the Taliban ruled Afghanistan was to .... better have a seat ..... he claims he when to open up a school for girls. A school for girls .... unfreakin' believable.
   
   To take Begg's story at face values requires one to suspend all logic and ignore every piece of evidence that would lead any reasonable person to the conclusion that he is a violent jihadist.
   
   The only way Begg should have left Gitmo is in a coffin not a rose parade from the Muslim Brotherhood.



2. Moazzam Begg has written a memoir about an experience during three years as a "detainee" that reminds one of Franz Kafka's fiction, but he claims that these things really happened and he writes with such clarity, conviction, and telling detail that I, for one, am convinced. Whether or not he was "guilty" is a mute point because although he was accused of many things - some quite fantastic and improbable - and even "confessed" under duress, he was never charged or tried for any crime. After three years of harsh treatment and over three hundred interrogation sessions, he was merely told he was free to go with no apology, thanks or recompense.
   Although I consider myself well educated, I know little about the language, culture, history, and religion of Muslims; I have few acquaintances and no friends from that world. In this respect, I believe I am typical of most other native born senior citizen of the United States. I am indebted to Begg for lifting this veil of ignorance for me; he is an excellent ambassador. Interspersed in this narrative about what Hannah Arendt called the "banality of evil" are asides and incidents revealing information and insights valuable to my understanding. If he is an example of Islam in practice, I want to know more about it. In the midst of his ordeal he was able to reach out to many of his guards and interrogators and establish a human bond. I was reminded of Pogo's memorable statement: "we have met the enemy and he is us." If you are old enough to remember that line, you may also remember the bad old days of McCarthyism and anti-communist hysteria and have a sense of déjà vu. You might do well to pay close attention to this book as a primmer on how to survive the kind of ordeal that Begg suffered through. In the current political environment of anti-terrorist hysteria, if you give aid, comfort, or support to Begg or people like him you could well be labeled "Enemy Combatent" and suffer the same fate or worse.



3. I am only half way through this book, but I can't resit writing a preliminary review after seeing the other reviews offered here.
   
   This book is not well written. It is endlessly repetitive and the timeline of events is often vague or ambiguous. You have to wade through dozens of reconstructions of Begg's conversations with guards, most of which attempt to show how easy it was to be one up on the American servicemen that he regarded as his social inferiors. He comes across as a self promoting prig and a pansy. This seems to be the pattern for the leading jihadis, they come from relatively privileged backgrounds. They are disaffected young men from comfortable backgrounds using terrorism as a way to work out their own internal conflicts. In Begg's case he has clearly been influenced greatly by the feeling that he was never fully accepted in the UK.
   
   I was a POW in Hanoi for six years. I can understand Begg's emotional response to his imprisonment. He has gone through the same emotional roller coaster that afflicts all prisoners, but that experience is universal and not the fault of the US or anyone else.
   
   I do believe that the Administration erred seriously in not giving all these detainees POW status. One result of doing so would be that there would be no discussion of habeus corpus or detention without trial or guilt. POWs are guilty of nothing but are detained until exchanged by agreement with the enemy or the conclusion of hostilities. They have no right to expect anything else. Almost all of the mistreatment that has befallen the detainees has been generated by confusion at all levels as to what the standards of treatment should have been. The confusion came from the top and worked down through all levels. The bad decisions were urged upon the Administration by a bunch of attorneys who, to be blunt, had no idea what they were talking about. They were way out of their league. Their prime motivation was merely to provide legal rationale for what the Administration was determined to do anyway. Advice from senior experienced military leaders was disregarded by civilian leaders. This is especially galling as many of those civilians evaded service during Vietnam while the senior military leaders all earned their hard won experience in Vietnam.
   
   The US fell into the same trap the Vietnamese did by denying a hated enemy the protection of the Geneva conventions. But there are important differences. Those detained by the US got enough to eat. To bad that Begg didn't care for the food- he got enough to eat. Reports are that most Gitmo detainees have put on a lot of weight. We who were POWs in Vietnam did not have that problem. The diet was semi starvation until the last months of the war. No, it wasn't because the guards didn't have anything better. They were well fed.
   
   Begg wrote and received mail. I didn't write or receive mail for almost four years, and then it was only a small six line form several times a year. The Vietnamese did not list me and most others as captured until late in the war. Like most, I was "missing presumed captured" and my family had no idea if I was alive or dead.
   
   Begg had paper to write with and books to read. We had none of that until the last month of the war. Six years with no way to make any use of your time except what was inside your head.
   
   Begg did not get as much opportunity to exercise as he wanted. Compare that to never.
   
   Begg was closely monitored and got adequate medical attention. We had none of that. Those injured prior to or during capture were lucky to live. If they lived they were to suffer for years with bones that knit together at crazy angles because they were never set. Wounds often drained and festered for years because the dressings were never changed and antibiotics were never used consistantly. Many died of their wounds. Ask John McCain. He was left to die until the Vietnamese realized he was the son of an Admiral and might be of some use. Even so the treatment given was so clumsy that he still has a gimp arm and other less visible injuries. About 137 Americans that we are pretty sure were captured never returned and no explanation has ever come from Vietnam. They either died of wounds not treated or were tortured to death or were executed. That's a pretty substantial number when you realize that the there were less than 600 American POWs. True, some detainees have died in our custody, and there may be culpability in those cases, but we are talking about a hand full out of thousands of detainees, most of whom were released and never sent to Gitmo.
   
   I haven't come across anything yet in Begg's book that sounds like torture. Torture was universal for us and there wasn't any doubt that it was torture. What happened met every conceivable definition, even the cockeyed one used by the Administration. Some died during torture. I almost did. I am alive only by a lucky accident I don't choose to explain here.
   
   Begg's places of detention were regularly visited by the ICRC. That never happened in Vietnam.
   
   I could go on, but when Begg finds so much time to complain about the fact that some of the guards were unfriendly or even insulting, he doesn't have much to complain about. Imprisonment is not pleasant and military discipline isn't either. Begg did not seem to have any background to prepare him for either- lucky him. Bottom line to me is that his experience was a cake walk except for the fact that he was detained.
   
   Of course, the real issue is whether he should have been detained at all. The answer to that is maybe yes, maybe no. He is certainly not going to admit in his book that he was working with Al Quaida. And guess what- he was released long before the war ended. Maybe he was totally blameless, maybe he was just no longer a threat. His release may have been conditioned on a pledge of good behavior and no further participation in efforts against the US. If he had had POW status, that would be called parole, which has a long history in international law. If a POW and not paroled, he would still be detained and would have no access to any court. Keep in mind that the status of "enemy combatant" is someone who has less protection from the Geneva Conventions than a POW. The reason for that is that the detainee has been captured in the field engaging hostilities without being a part of any recognized armed force. Then consider that a POW will be detained until the end of hostilities without accusation or trial of any kind. If "enemy combatants" have less protection than POWs, how is it that they should have access to our legal system? The Administration's use of the "enemy combatant" status has been an error that helps no one. It has caused a lot of confusion even among legal scholars who should know better. Had they been kept as POWs, they could be kept until the end of hostilities with out trial, accusation or access to any court. If the US had any reason to believe any of them were guilty of crimes against the laws of war, they could still be tried for those acts. POW status does not protect anyone from criminal prosecution.
   
   I'm not happy with the way we've handled our captives in this conflict, but I challenge anyone to name any enemy we have ever faced who has done as well as the imperfect performance we have delivered this time.



4. leaving aside his guilt or innocence and the question of whether his treatment was fair or inhuman......what you won't find here is a political rant, mystical "epiphanies",philosophical speculation or reflections on Islam (except for talk among prisoners as to whether their religion permits attacks such as that of 9/11).instead we are given a calm, clear-eyed, step-by-step account of his time spent in custody. there are descriptions of the various guards, interrogators, and their rules and, finally, when he is released from solitary confinement, his fellow "detainees". he relishes reading so it is surprising that his poetry is the worst doggerel i've ever read. however the prose is clear and precise and he even includes the times when he lost his composure.



5. The author, either a pious bookseller and humanitarian or a supporter of al-Qaida, depending on who you ask, was abducted from his house in Islamabad and spent three years in the titular prisons. Begg is, by other accounts, a reasonable and charming man, and was a model prisoner who got along with several of his guards. His personality shows through in his prose, which is readable, clear, and impassioned without veering into needless vitriol (though he does not bother to hide his disdain for American culture and political ignorance). There are two ways to read the book: the unrepentant apologia of a liar who got caught funding terrorism, or the clarion call of an innocent man nearly destroyed by an unjust and unthinking system. Personally, I think there's a bit of truth to both. Begg leaves out an earlier arrest in his memoir, and even at times condemns himself from his own mouth. It isn't just a post 9/11 America that suspected him; he was investigated by MI5 as early as 1998. He also defends the Taliban, claims that he was allowed to build a girls' school under them, hints that 9/11 was known ahead of time by US authorities who let it happen, and thinks that Afghanistan was attacked because it was a "purist Islamic state" (which is ludicrous). But at the same time, the outrage of this book is that even if Begg was as bad as Bush and company said, he should have gotten a trial. The charges against him should have been made public and plain. He and all the others should have been treated with a modicum of humanity (which is not the same as respect or complacency). And certainly, US and British intelligence should have conducted interrogations with intelligence and coordination, not the repetitive, unhelpful sessions by any number of alphabet agencies vying with each other instead of sharing information. At the very least, Begg's memoir shows that the aftermath of the War on Terror is as badly handled in the prisons as it is in the White House.

5 comments about Ulysses S. Grant (The American Presidents).

1. 
   This is one of two brief biographies of Grant (1822-1885) I recently read, the other written by Michael Korda and included among the volumes which comprise the Atlas Books/HarperCollins' "Eminent Lives" series, with James Atlas serving as general editor. Although both cover much of the same material, there are significant differences between their authors' respective approaches to the18th president of the United States.
   
   For example, Korda duly acknowledges the problems which awaited Grant after he was elected to his first term in 1869. "What did Grant's reputation as a president in, however, (and continues to do so today whenever journalists and historians are drawing up lists of the best presidents vs. the worst ones), was the depression of 1873, which ushered in a long period of unemployment and distress, made politically more damaging by accusations that the president's wealthy friends were making money out of it." Given that the United States was growing too fast, in too many different directions at once, and the inevitable consequence was corruption and an unstable economy, it would have taken a more astute man than Grant to slow things down or clean them up."
   
   It is soon obvious in this volume that Bunting disagrees with, indeed resents the fact that Grant is generally remembered "as a general, not a president, [which] explains in part the condescension - there is no better word for it -- from which pundits and historians have tended to write of him." Bunting asserts that if judged by the consequences of Grant's common sense, judgment, and intuition, his presidency, "so far from being one of the nation's worst, may yet be seen as one of the best."
   
   Korda indicates no inclination to view Grant's presidency as "one of the best." He duly acknowledges the problems which awaited Grant after he was elected to his first term in 1869. "What did Grant's reputation as a president in, however, (and continues to do so today whenever journalists and historians are drawing up lists of the best presidents vs. the worst ones), was the depression of 1873, which ushered in a long period of unemployment and distress, made politically more damaging by accusations that the president's wealthy friends were making money out of it." Given that the United States was growing too fast, in too many different directions at once, and the inevitable consequence was corruption and an unstable economy, "it would have taken a more astute man than Grant to slow things down or clean them up."
   
   This last observation by Korda is consistent with a contemporary assessment of Grant by the Edinburgh Review, one which Brooks Simpson quotes in his own study (Let Us Have Peace: Ulysses S. Grant and the Politics of War and Reconstruction 1861-1868), and which Bunting also cites: "To bind up the wounds left by the war, to restore concord to the still distracted Union, to ensure real freedom to the Southern Negro, and full justice to the southern white; these are indeed tasks which might tax the powers of Washington himself or a greater than Washington, if such a man is to be found."
   
   With all due respect to Grant's admirable personal qualities, I remain unconvinced by Bunting's eloquent but - in my judgment - problematic endorsement of Grant's
   leadership as president. The same "buck" that stops on a desk on a battlefield in Virginia also stops on a desk in the Oval Office.
   
   Those who share my high regard for this volume are urged to check out Korda's biography as well as Grant's Personal Memoirs. Both Korda and Bunting cite a number of other sources worthy of consideration.



2. Ulysses S. Grant was a simple man (a "guy's guy" if you will) whose quiet, dignified leadership and composure helped the nation through some of the worst days of the Civil War. It seems odd really to think of a military commander (or a military man of any rank or position) to possess the qualities that Grant did. Humble. Straightforward. Sensitive. And yet he was all these things.
   
   He had to contend with the same horrors that Lincoln had to face: the most disruptive and bloody years the nation ever suffered through. And following the war (rather than accept retirement after having served) he accepted a call to the presidency, and with it, the challenges of Reconstruction. The simple statement, "Let us have peace," still echo down as a strong reminder to us, to those who never had the chance to meet him... Grant really was the right person for the times in which he passed.
   
   The author, Josiah Bunting III, deserves credit and our thanks for having written a very good book. It's language is engaging. As a reader, I never thought I'd be able to sit through pages of descriptive narration of battles, army movements and strategy. It was never really something I could stomach in any of my history classes, and yet Mr. Bunting had me at every move. I was fascinated and along for every moment of the ride.
   
   One can't help but be struck with the haunting realization that the Civil War was never a thing written in stone: it was avoidable. As with any other historical moment, it was something that came, something that followed the actions of other leaders (Franklin Pierce, Stephen Douglas, James Buchanan all spring to mind) who couldn't see that they were walking down a dangerous path. And yet, the war also lifted some men into national prominence: men of great character... men like U. S. Grant.



3. The short volumes in the American Presidents series offer an outstanding way for readers to get reacquainted with American history and with our Nation's leaders. Each volume is written by a scholar who brings his or her own perspective to the subject, focusing on the factors that make the president in question worth knowing and remembering. In this volume of the series, Josiah Bunting III offers an admirable and challenging portrait of U.S. Grant (1822 -- 1885) who served as the eighteenth president of the United States (1869 -- 1877). Bunting is a former army officer who served as the superintendant of the Virginia Military Institute for many years. He offers a reappraisal of the Grant presidency in this volume, in company with some other contemporary scholarly reassessments.
   
   As Bunting emphasizes, Grant has suffered from cliches both as General and as President. He is frequently castigated as a "drunk" (Grant did indeed have problems with alcohol early in his career) and as a "butcher", in spite of the extraordinary strategic skill he displayed in the Vicksburg campaign, at Fort Donelson, in crossing the James River en route to Petersburg, and elsewhere (and in spite of the relatively low casualty rates, overall, of the armies under his command). In his presidency, Grant is often found at the bottome of the various rankings, primarily due to the corruption that ensued during his administration.
   
   Bunting's book offers a brief portrait of Grant's early life and a good brief summary of his accomplishments during the Civil War. He also offers a brisk account of Grant's activities during the four years between Appomattox and Grant's own election to the presidency, focusing on his increasingly strained relationship with Andrew Johnson and his eventual rejection of Johnson's lenient policy of Reconstruction. This pivotal period of Grant's career is frequently overlooked.
   
   But the focus of the book is on Grant's presidency. Bunting properly points out that with the exception of Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt, no person faced greater challenges than did Grant in assuming the executive office. The country was seriously divided over Reconstruction, with the seemingly intractable goals of restoring the Union on the one hand and protecting the rights of African Americans on the other hand. Bunting praises Grant for the efforts he made to protect the rights of the freed people. With substantial justification, Bunting says that Grant's efforts were the strongest made by an American president until the mid-20th Century. Bunting also praises Grant for pursuing a relatively humane policy towards the Indians, for his courageous veto of inflationary paper money legislation in 1874, and for his calm and principled stance during the Hayes-Tilden controversy in the presidential election of 1876.
   
   Bunting does not overlook Grant's deficiencies as president, but I think he tends to downplay them. He acknowledges a substantial degree of moral obtuseness in Grant, if not personal culpability, in the manner in which the President responded to the scandals which plagued his administration. Grant showed a high degree of cronyism while in office and a tendency, derived from his success as a general, to be peremptory in has actions and judgments. On several occasions, Grant's policies and inactions led to economic difficulties, including the severe depression of 1873. Even in the area of Reconstruction and civil rights, Grant frequently compromised his efforts due to political considerations. And he was aware that the military presence in the South and the agressive Federal efforts to protect the rights of the freed people would need to end, due to lack of support in the nation, if not during his administration, then in the administration of his successor.
   
   Grant remained a revered figure during his lifetime. He probably could have been elected to a third term in 1876, had he wished, and he narrowly missed a renomination for president in 1880. Grant's Memoirs of his Civil War and Mexican War experiences, which he wrote towards the end of his life, is a classic of American literature.
   
   I think historians will debate the extent to which Bunting's work, and similar studies, serve to rehabilitate the presidency of Grant. But clearly, Bunting offers a fresh and thoughtful approach which will serve to modify the stereotypes that many informed Americans carry about him. Bunting's book offers a good introduction to a great, if enigmatic, American and to his difficult presidency.
   
   Robin Friedman



4. While Bunting does a creditable job of presenting an accurate chronology of Grant's career, the concise format leaves minimal opportunity to examine motivations and nuance of the many facets of the general and president. Those interested in Grant and the Civil War /post-war reconstruction will find this a worthy starting point only - for a more insightful examination the next step would be Grant's autobiography itself. Do not choose this text for coverage of the Civil War engagements to any extent. Bunting has delivered a well-written but terse overview of an impossibly complex character and time in American history.



5. Ulysses S. Grant (born Hiram Ulysses Grant, but there's a story there, as summarized in this work) was to ascend to the highest ranks in the hearts of his countrymen--from commanding general of the Union forces to President of the United States.
   
   His rise to such positions seemed most unlikely to those who knew him in the years after the Mexican War. He grew up in Ohio and, through happenstance, ended up at West Point. He completed his studies, ranking in the middle of the pack in his class. He was noteworthy for his skills as a horseman and for his mathematical ability. His performance in the Mexican War was very strong. In the process of his tour of duty, he served under both Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott, and learned considerably about what makes a general. Thereafter, he had a series of postings leaving him isolated and sometimes "on the bottle," where he developed a reputation as a drunk.
   
   There follows the familiar story of his departure from the army, failed effort after failed effort at creating a solid economic grounding h=for his family. As the Civil War opened, while he was working in the family store in Galena, Illinois, he served as an officer as civilian military units were formed.
   
   After that, his meteoric rise in the Army--from regiment command to commanding general of all Union forces. In between, he displayed the ability to win battles that often led other generals to retreat. In the process, Americans had come to respect him as the war closed.
   
   The book chronicles his disagreements with Andrew Johnson's policies after Lincoln's assassination. Then, in 1868, Grant was nominated by the Republicans for president. This book takes a hard look at his presidency--the good, the bad, and the ugly. There were some important contributions--despite faltering, he did try to support the newly won rights of former slaves; he also supported humane treatment of Indians (even against the wishes of his top lieutenants--William Sherman and Phil Sheridan). But his economic policy contributed to the Panic that engulfed his second administration. His blind eye toward corruption of some of his colleagues does him no honor in history. There were also some foreign policy successes, to round out the picture.
   
   And, his final years, in which he courageously tried to provide for his families' economic security.
   
   All in all, another good entry in this series of brief biographies (155 pages of text, with a useful chronology following the text). As always, if one wishes a quick and accessible view of this American president, this book will do nicely. And, even though this book is brief, the author pouts Grant's performance as president in a nice context.

5 comments about Paul Revere and the World He Lived In.

1. Paul Revere and the World He Lived in by Esther Forbes is a well written authoritative biography about Paul Revere. The book has a flowing but romantic aire to it... painting a portrait with words and describing the life and times of early New England and Boston in particular.

   Paul Revere was a multifarious man displaying many talents as the book points out. Well written, flowing narrative, being easily readable and well documented are just a few of the wonderful traits that the author brings to the reader. It's enjoyable to read and you feel like your right there seeing everything transpire right before your eyes. That's a talent raely found in writing and no wonder this book won a Pulitzer Prize in history.

   This book is well worth reading and gives the reader a good foundation as to what life was like for people from 1735 - 1818. As well, this should be one of the books used in our schools for teaching American History. The author really brings out a love for her subject in this book.




2. Esther Forbes shows that Paul Revere was not just a guy who rode a horse and shouted, "The British are coming!" Actually, his famous ride to Lexington was a very small part of his life and contribution to our nation's development. Forbes provides thorough details about Revere's many activities and interests. In addition to his work as one of the Sons of Liberty, he was an engraver, silversmith, bell maker, military officer, and manufacturer of gunpowder and rolled copper. And if that weren't enough, he dabbled in dentistry. Such an entrepreneur! It's inspiring to see what can be accomplished by a person who is honest, hard-working, humble, and genuinely concerned about other people.

   Forbes also includes a lot of information about other prominent people from Boston, such as John Hancock, Joseph Warren, Dr. Benjamin Church, and Samuel Adams. These men played important roles, but I think the focus is on Revere because of the aura surrounding Paul Revere and his legendary midnight ride. We are drawn to stories of heroism in the face of mortal danger. John Hancock's huge signature ... well, it just doesn't stir us the same way.

   Most of the action happens between 1756 and 1779. It was a time of tension and uncertainty. Forbes shows that the people struggling against the British really didn't know how it would turn out. There were no guarantees of success. Also, the wrangling between Whigs and Tories seemed like a foreshadowing of the friend-against-friend clashes that happened in our Civil War 80 years later.

   The pre-1756 and post-1779 events didn't benefit from the inherent excitement of current events, so these parts of the book didn't hold my attention as well. Still, this IS a biography, and it isn't Forbes' fault that Revere lived 40 years past the end of the Revolutionary War.

   I enjoyed this non-sensationalized look at social, political, and military facets of colonial America. And now that I know what Paul Revere did beyond riding horses and shouting, I'm glad he's got a spot in our history books.




3. For this book Forbes got the Pulitzer Prize and it is hard to believe it is almost 50 years old now.

   It is a biography of Paul Revere but also more than that. It is also the history of Boston and the Revolution. Because of his important standing in Boston of his day, he was a coppersmith, a Son of Liberty and a prominent Mason, we get to know a lot more about 'the world he lived in'.

   It seems very fair and balanced. Not a great soldier or tactician but someone who was instrumental behind the scenes as a provider of weaponry and of course as a messenger.

   For those interested in daily life AND the Revolutionary War this book is great. It also shows you what Paul REvere did and why you find his name so often when walking around Boston.




4. It is a rare author who can write a book that , 50 years later, shows few signs of age. It is also rare for the writer of historical fiction to have the ability to entice kids of another generation to enter the world of which she writes. Esther Forbes is one of those gifted writers. Fifteen years ago, my 13 year old son pulled this book from my shelves and found himself thoroughly immersed in the world of 18th century Boston. Although more has undoubtedly been discovered about the life and times of Paul Revere since this particular bio was initially published, this account remains vital and valuable today. I don't keep all of the books that I buy and read, but this has been in my bookcase for more than 20 years.



5. If you would like to go back in time and really experience what it was like to know Paul Revere, John Hancock, Samuel Adams & Joseph Warren - then this book is for you. It is an enjoyable read that really takes you back to Boston in the late 1700's.
   
   You will come to understand what an important role Paul Revere played in our early history. It is fascinating to see that a man who was involved in the Boston tea party turned around and left without sleep to carry news to Philadelphia of what had taken place. He made the trip to Philadelphia and back four times that year, averaging 63 miles a day!
   
   By reading this book, you will be there to see the painted faces of men returning from the Boston tea party, or feel the frustration of having the king's soldiers living in your neighbor's homes. You will experience anxiety as Robert Newman makes his narrow escape out of Christ's Church window after the lanterns have given warning.
   
   You will also come to appreciate Paul Revere - who was kind-hearted, quick to make peace with old enemies, and willing to do what was needed. You will find that at age 65 he took on the task of learning how to roll copper for the ships for our new American Navy.
   
   After reading this book you will find you have been both entertained and educated!