5 comments about Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President.

1. I doubt many historians would consider Dick Cheney the most controversial VP in US history - compared to Aaron Burr, Cheney is relatively tame.
   
   But despite the title, it is still good to see a volume that tries to cut through all the hyperbole and hatchet journalism in an effort to "stick to the facts." Cheney detractors looking for ammunition may not be satisfied, but the book certainly deserves kudos for its good-faith attempt at thoroughness.



2. There were many things that I suspected about Cheney, but never really knew, until now. The book is easy reading and very informative. It is one of the rare instances
   
   Yes, there are a few elephants in the room that are not addressed in depth, but at least they are referred to. In fact, in 20 years, they will be much less important than they seemed 5 and 10 years ago. Making this book somewhat of a glimpse into the future of how Cheney will be "remembered by history."
   
   I wish more biographies were written this well, regardless of who the subject is.



3. I suppose that when compared to other Vice President's books that Cheney is enthralling. The political scientists, who can tolerate some conservative bias, will be pleased. He is a mysterious man and this book illuminates some of our recent years with him.



4. This book appears to have been ghost written by Dick Cheney as it contains nothing but arguments always in support of his career despite the facts of his career. The author is no more than an apologist for Dick and should be ashamed of his cherry picking facts to suit his argument.



5. Amazon's choice of TAGS for this book are absolutely appalling! I couldn't believe what I saw. This is shocking and disgraceful! My wife and I have been satisfied customers of Amazon, but now, we will NEVER order anything from Amazon again.
   
   This is a very well written book that depicts the life of a man who has dedicated over 40 years of service to his fellow man. After reading this book, you will gain a better understanding of a complex man that has achieved a level of greatness in spite of being vilified by politicians, the news media and NOW AMAZON. Shameful!
   
   Jere F Sumrall
   

5 comments about The Long Pursuit: Abraham Lincoln's Thirty-Year Struggle with Stephen Douglas for the Heart and Soul of America.

1. Abraham Lincoln is probably the most famous past president in our history, with the possible exception of George Washington. Lincoln was a great man, but most people don't remember that for much of his life, he was largely a political failure, if a principled one. The chief reason for this was a political rival, a Democrat named Stephen A. Douglas. Douglas was a powerhouse in the Senate for a quarter century, forging compromises and legislation, arguing the cause of compromise with the South so that discord didn't destroy his party and country. Douglas and Lincoln met in debate repeatedly, and were rivals in Illinois politics for a considerable time.
   
   While they were rivals, they were also at least cordial, if not outright friends. Finally, in 1857, Lincoln was nominated for the Senate seat Douglas held, and the two met in a series of debates. Douglas won the election, but had to say things in the debates that alienated the South, while Lincoln managed to engage, even energize the Republican sentiment in much of the country with his side in the debates. Within two years, Douglas was a weak candidate for president, fatally wounded by a rival Democrat nominated by the Southern Democratic party, and so Lincoln triumphed in the presidential election in 1860.
   
   The story of all of this is very well-recounted in this book by Roy Morris Jr. Morris is careful to give Douglas his due. Frankly, Stephen A. Douglas should be a better-known figure in American politics. When Lincoln won the presidency in 1860, Douglas, in spite of the animosity that had permeated the election, immediately endorsed Lincoln, and castigated the South for their threats to secede. This sort of politics is today very unusual, and you wonder whether anyone today thinks they could learn from the past.
   
   I really enjoyed this book and would recommend it to anyone interested in Lincoln or the 19th Century.



2. It is a common observation that we are shaped, morally and intellectually, by the people we choose as friends. As demonstrated by this book, we may be shaped even more dramatically by our enemies and competitors.
   
   Abraham Lincoln was such an amazing president that we often forget how difficult was his climb from obscurity. As Roy Morris makes clear, Stephen Douglas was essential to Lincoln's training. The competition between these two men brought out the best in Lincoln, and forced him to refine his political skills and ideas. In particular, it forced Lincoln to define a moral yet measured approach to limiting the scope of slavery in the territories, with the hope of sending the institution to its ultimate extinction.
   
   My main surprise was Morris' limited treatment of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. However, he makes up for that deficiency with many insights into related issues, such as Douglas' struggles within the Democratic Party at the time of the 1860 presidential election.
   
   Morris weaves into his narrative many interesting opinions and suppositions about Lincoln's subjective reactions to the events swirling around him. However, at times Morris seems to get carried away, and projects onto Lincoln opinions that are inconsistent with the historical record. For example, he makes a passing reference to the "notably irreligious Lincoln," which is hard to reconcile with Lincoln's profound religious beliefs, reflected in his many speeches and letters, and culminating in his powerful Second Inaugural address. (See e.g. White, Lincoln's Greatest Speech)



3. Coming, as I do, from the Land of Lincoln, new books on our 16th president are always of interest. Rarely do they seem to take a new tack on an old story. Though some are better written than others, many seem to cover the same ground. Morris, however, does something interesting in his book, The Long Pursuit. He gives us a look at Lincoln through the long-standing relationship/rivalry between Lincoln and the other important Illinois politician of the time, Stephen Douglas.
   
   In fact, if the truth be told, Douglas was the more important of the two figures right up to the point that Lincoln won the presidency in 1860. Throughout the 1850's, Douglas was the powerhouse Democratic senator from Illinois and perennial candidate for president while Lincoln remained, if not an unknown, certainly a small-time, provincial politician. It was, of course, his series of debates with Douglas and the resulting fallout during the senate election of 1858 that finally took Lincoln to national prominence and gave him his shot at the presidency two years later.
   
   In some ways, it is too bad that Douglas has been all but forgotten except as Lincoln's foil in those all important debates. (Can you tell I'm from one of the cities in which those debates took place?) Considering his impact during those antebellum years, Douglas deserves better. And, to his credit, Morris does him justice here. We are offered plenty of fair insight into Douglas's character here and how he tried to navigate his way through difficult times while being a powerful leader. In many ways, I feel I know Stephen Douglas much better from reading this book.
   
   Still, this is Lincoln's story. And it is Lincoln's story under a spotlight focused on a very particular period of time. We get very little of Lincoln's youth, now well-passed into legend. The story really picks up with Lincoln's arrival at New Salem, Illinois, as a young man, soon to enter political life. It follows Lincoln through his ups and downs in Illinois, his encounters with Douglas (including details on those all important debates), his positioning as the Republican candidate for president, his improbable yet inevitable election, and finishing up with his swearing in as president. Nothing is mentioned of his years in the White House. Which is just what this book needs as it tells a different story. Within months of Lincoln's swearing in, Douglas was dead.
   
   In the end, this is an excellent book. In a well-ploughed field of history, it is unique. Not only that, it is well-written and informative about a period of Lincoln's life that is less well-known and brings back to life Stephen Douglas--a man who, but for some twists of fate, could be as well-remembered as Lincoln (if not as well-respected, perhaps). For anyone interested in Lincoln's life, this is a book that should be read.



4. Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas were the two preeminent Illinois politicians of the pre-Civil War era, and their debates are an important part of American political history. On the eve of the 150th anniversary of these debates comes the release of "The Long Pursuit," which chronicles the complicated political relationship of these men far beyond these famous debates. I'm a neophyte to Lincoln history, so I approached this book with some trepidation. Fortunately, the book is well-written and straight-forward enough that I was able to follow along without knowing a great deal of Lincoln history.
   
   The average person knows Douglas mostly through his debates with Lincoln, and Roy Morris Jr. notes with irony that most people think that Douglas lost the political race in which the debates occurred. Instead, Douglas won the Illinois Senate race against Lincoln; he was considered a star in politics, whereas Lincoln remained essentially a relatively obscure country lawyer. When Douglas became an obvious Democratic nominee for the Presidency, these debates actually ended up helping Lincoln, as his supporters in the Republican Party could argue that Lincoln knew Douglas and his debating style so well that he could match up well with Dougles, despite the earlier loss. Fortunately for Lincoln, his stance against the spread of slavery into new territories gained greater acceptance in the North than did Douglas' appeasement approach, and he managed to spring to the Presidency over the better known Douglas (helped by the entry into the race of several third party candidates).
   
   Indeed, throughout his early career, Lincoln seemed to be inexorably tethered to Douglas, although history obviously has dimmed the reputation of Douglas, who was known as the Little Giant in his day. "The Long Pursuit" is interesting reading, and the material is certainly timely given the anniversary of their famous debates. Roy Morris Jr. does a good job placing their relationship in historical context and including enough interesting stories to keep this Lincoln newbie interested. I was a bit disappointed that the Lincoln-Douglas debates were not covered in greater detail; however, that simply may have been beyond the scope of this book, and that material does seem to be covered in many other texts. What this book did do is whet my appetite for more information and to seek out other books on the topic.



5. This title is essentially a dual biography of the political lives of Douglas and Lincoln. Although well-researched and informative, with numerous personal anecdotes covering both men, it never quite brings Lincoln or Douglas to life.
   
   Instead, Morris emphasizes the growing struggle of words, political parties and ideas as America grappled with its "irrepressible conflict." The author conveys Douglas as a capable conventional politician with "practical solutions to political problems" who nonetheless "failed to recognize that many northerners and southerners had moved beyond mere politics into a realm of theoretical certitude as exacting and precise as a hard-shelled Baptist's understanding of sin." (p. 193) Douglas strove to stand on a middle ground that was dividing like a geological fault line. The chasm opened and Douglas fell through - obvious with historical perspective but not so to Douglas and his followers in the late 1850's.
   
   Too intellectually intense to be a simple "good read," this book nonetheless conveys well a recurring theme in politics when a paradigm shift suddenly renders a "reasonable" viewpoint out of date. In ordinary times, the experienced and capable Douglas might have become president. But times were not normal, and so a rustic, funny man with a gift for speaking and a latent consistency of purpose rose to become America's president in its hour of greatest need.

4 comments about Dirty Diplomacy: The Rough-and-Tumble Adventures of a Scotch-Drinking, Skirt-Chasing, Dictator-Busting and Thoroughly Unrepentant Ambassador Stuck on the Frontline of the War Against Terror.

1. The book details the real-life story of Craig Murray, a successful British career diplomat that became a pawn in the Great Game. Assigned to become Ambassador to Uzbekistan, he took over a very small embassy with all the attendant issues (morale, support, etc.) He also very quickly became aware of horrific human rights abuses in Uzbekistan that have been substantiated by other NGOs like Human Rights Watch.
   
   His subsequent attempt to stand up against a regime that enjoyed boiling people alive, executing real or perceived enemies of the state in extra-judicial killings, etc. subsequently got Mr. Murray into trouble with the Blair administration since he was stirring the pot with one of their erstwhile allies in the "War on Terror". However, as Mr. Murray so eloquently lays out, it is precisely this type of tyrannical regime that leads to the rise of fundamentalist, extremist groups in the first place.
   
   Mr. Murray went to extraordinary lengths to represent British interests in Uzbekistan and traveled the whole nation to get to know it better. Along the way, he tried his best to encourage Democracy and Rule of Law, a novelty in Uzbekistan. Some of his more dangerous and coloful confrontations included standing up to various local government officials, thugs, etc. and are recounted in gripping detail. It is evident that Mr. Murray risked considerable harm to himself.
   
   Like most other diplomats in Uzbekistan, Mr. Murray could have simply looked the other way, just as the British government instructed him to when he reported human rights abuses and other issues with the regime that the Blair and Bush administrations wanted to cozy up to. That is not to say that he is a knight in shining armor, but he seems to be pretty honest about his personal flaws.
   
   When one of his internal Memos to the Foreign Office decrying the human rights abuses in Uzbekistan was leaked to the press, the British government took extraordinary steps to kick him out of the Foreign Service. With his departure, the British Foreign Service lost one of their more courageous and competent ambassadors, though perhaps he was a bit too honest and outspoken for the diplomatic club.
   
   This book was originally published under the title "Murder in Samarkand" in Britain. This version names more names regarding the folk working behind the scenes to kick Mr. Murray out of the Foreign Service, thanks to US freedom of speech laws. The British paperback version has more pictures, however. It's a very interesting read, and I highly recommend it.



2. First a clarification: I read "Murder in Samarkand" the British version of this book. It is an excellent, engaging and fast read. Murray details in a way I have not seen before the inner workings and nitty gritty politics of diplomacy during the "war on terror". It is a tale that should be of great interest to American readers as a different perspective on a seemingly forgotten part of the war. The book is split roughly between three topic areas which are intertwined and reported on as a first person narrative. It moves quickly and jumps between what he is doing as the British ambassador in Uzbekistan especially on human rights issues, the internal politics of the British Foreign Service as they try to restrain then fire their gonzo swashbuckling ambassador, and his description of a boozy, skirt chasing and not very discrete personal life as ambassador. In the end it is a story of a man with a strong sense of justice who exhibits exceptional courage and uses his position to stand up against horrific human rights abuses. Murray clearly has a strong sense of honor and justice and the capacity for wit, style, and resourcefulness under pressure. It is also a tragicomedy of sorts as captured by the US book title and as evidenced by the fact that he lost his career but got the belly dancer.
   
   Uzbekistan was an important sideshow in the post 9/11 "war on terror" in Afghanistan and its story has not been well covered by US media. As part of the war on the Taliban, the US sought and got cooperation from the Uzbek government to establish a major air base within spitting distance of Afghanistan and made its deal with the devil in order to do so. The Brits, or at least Tony Blair's government, had little active role in that but did support the US. Murray, as the new ambassador, quickly fell out of step with the Blair government and the book is largely focused on the efforts of the now rogue ambassador to expose and limit the ghastly human rights abuses being carried out by the Uzbek government under the guise of supporting the war on terror. The government of Uzbekistan is kleptocracy and a police state throwback to Stalinist times. Craig Murray was one of a very few (and clearly the leading) western diplomats who accurately pointed out this inconvenient fact and its consequences. The toady US ambassadors at the time failed to take a stand and actively worked to undermine Murray. The book describes events occurring before the 2005 massacre of hundreds of protesters in Andejan which finally caused the US to back away from supporting the Ubek government.
   
   This is not a simple history or rant against a totalitarian regime. It is a first person documentary of issues that both the US and British governments were trying to sweep under the rug. Murray's decision to incorporate some mundane details of diplomatic life actually works very well by creating a context for what is going on and by making an otherwise very political topic much more than just a polemic. His single handed quixotic struggle to expose the harm caused by the US/Uzbek marriage of convenience and the clearly horrific abuses of human rights and democracy in the region would become wearisome and dry without the spice of booze, belly dancers, and clandestine meetings. The book at times seems to deal almost as much with his unambassadorial lifestyle as it does with politics but frankly it makes a much better read because of that. Murray's memory for detail is remarkable and appears to be quite accurate according to friends who attended some of the events he describes. Having worked myself in Tashkent during the time Murray is writing about I'd add that he really doesn't exaggerate in describing Uzbekistan or the difficult lives and fears of the average citizen.
   
   Murray could well have titled the book "Fear and Loathing in Tashkent" and tried to list Hunter Thompson as a coauthor. Hollywood would (?will) certainly not need to spice this story up for the big screen. I don't know if Murray is naturally as open as he comes across in the book or whether he has painted his self portrait (as described in the US title) simply because he thought it best to put everything on the table himself rather than let his enemies snipe at him over lifestyle issues. Murray obviously did take his job, as he defined it, very seriously and in the end did sacrifice his career rather than bend on his principles. Although he addresses some of his own foibles as part and parcel of his boozy adventures, this is not an autobiography. His marriage ends halfway through the book but he never lets on about any trouble at home (though it is hard to imagine any spouse putting up with his antics). We don't hear about the break up of his family other than noting that the final straw was his obsession and open courting of a beautiful belly dancer half his age. (I told you Hollywood would not need to spice this story up...too bad Jack Nicholson is too old to play the lead).
   
   The book is really a combination expose, polemic and titillating confession that just works as a great read. His writing is lucid, sharp and he never drones when making political points. One cannot help but admire his willingness to risk and destroy his diplomatic career in the service of a greater good. He was right and I suspect history will be kind to him. As best I can tell he is currently an itinerant writer living in London. One comes away from this book admiring him and hoping that he will bounce back into some human rights leadership role again. And, if he doesn't, I hope at least he finds peace and happiness with his belly dancer.



3. Eye opening account how some tricky diplomacy occurs from a view from former British ambassador to Uzbekistan. The book reveals the social injustice that occurs in this part of the world. Very interesting read.



4. I read Mr. Murray's memoir of his service in Uzbekistan with great interest because I lived in Uzbekistan at the same time he was there. Living and working in Uzbekistan meant living in a blinding fog of misinformation and government propaganda. After reading 'Dirty Diplomacy' I can understand now to what extent the Uzbek government, as well as my own American government, justified torture and corruption in the name of its 'war against terror'. Mr. Murray's book is also enlightening about the dealings of the diplomatic world. A very informative read.

4 comments about Madame Chiang Kai-shek: China's Eternal First Lady.

1. It's surprising to note that this is the first biography of one of the most politically influential women of modern times, but MADAME CHIANG KAI-SHEK: CHINA'S ETERNAL FIRST LADY remains the only title to provide the complete story of a woman who seized unofficial and official power during China's civil war. Her position against Chinese Communism and her diplomatic relations affected decades of Chinese-American relations, so this book is key to a thorough understanding of not just the woman, but Chinese politics and influences in particular.
   
   Diane C. Donovan
   California Bookwatch



2. This is a book to dive into, and lose yourself for days. Madame Chiang Kai-Shek is that good a story, and this is that good an account of her life. Madame Chiang used her political cunning and legendary drive to seduce supporters to her side of China's epic civil war during the middle part of the 20th century.
   
   The Nationalist regime, headed by her husband, was hated by the Chinese people for its notorious brutality and corruption. But as portrayed by Madame Chiang, especially to American audiences, Chiang Kai-shek's government was a modern, educated bulwark of democracy and freedom for a country whose history had allowed little of either. Indeed, Madame Chiang personified the vaunted hopes, bitter disappointments and complex misunderstandings of the U.S.-China relationship, which vacillated wildly during her exceptional 105-year lifetime. Laura Tyson Li's incisive new biography, rises to the tall task of capturing this pivotal figure in all her splendor and humiliation, against a backdrop of war, revolution and unending political turmoil. Li, a journalist with a decade of experience in Asia, accurately portrays her as "beautiful, vain, witty, spirited, capricious, scheming, selfish, and driven."
   
   What a character. What a tale.
   
   The book opens in the waning days of China's second-to-last emperor in the late 1890s, when Mayling Olive Soong was born in Shanghai, the youngest daughter of a businessman who had made a fortune selling Bibles and presided over a family of savvy, idealistic and recklessly ambitious children. One married Sun Yat-sen, China's first president. Another became finance minister and acting prime minister of Nationalist China. Another became one of China's richest women. Mayling became Madame Chiang Kai-shek.
   
   In an era when few girls learned to read and fewer traveled, Mayling was schooled in Georgia, then graduated from Wellesley College, where she excelled at French, violin and religious studies. She returned to Shanghai in 1917 just as China lurched into a bloody warlord period, and soon she was courted by the most severe warlord of all, Chiang Kai-shek. He divorced one wife and sent another off to Columbia University before Mayling agreed to marry him.
   
   During World War II, Madame Chiang became a superb envoy to the United States, where her address to Congress in 1943 thrilled Washington, and her barnstorming across the country won renewed support and money to defeat the Japanese. In China, she was a poised partner to her husband, softening his imperiousness while sharpening his political machinations.
   
   In Li's telling, husband and wife (who shared a bedroom with a screen separating their beds) could not have differed more. He was an early riser; she stayed up late watching movies. He was ascetic; she insisted on luxury. Still, they called each other 'Dar' (short for 'darling') and for years collaborated to cement fragile political alliances and keep a shaky hold on power.
   
   The book has delicious tidbits, such as an affair with Republican presidential nominee Wendell Wilkie and her insistence on getting silk sheets when she stayed in President Franklin D. Roosevelt's White House.
   
   Overall, Li delivers a thoughtful portrait of a complex woman and resists the considerable temptation to crucify her. That is a refreshing contrast to the shock-and-awe approach seen in so many recent books on prominent figures in China's recent history. Li deconstructs critical historical events with skill: the Xian Incident, when Chiang Kai-shek was kidnapped by rebellious generals; the 50-year house-arrest of the leading kidnapper, with whom Madame Chiang developed a curious friendship; Madame Chiang's mysterious disappearances for months at a time, caused, Li thinks by physical and mental illnesses, including debilitating hives, breast cancer and nervous breakdown.
   
   More reporter than writer, Li assiduously draws on Madame Chiang's extensive personal correspondence, from archives around the world, to explain each stage of her drama. It's a spellbinding period of history. And it does not end well for the Chiangs. The Nationalist regime crumbled to the Communists in 1949. The Chiangs fled to Taiwan, admitting no fault, but blamed President Truman and vowed to retake the mainland. That dream faded gradually after Chiang Kai-shek died in 1975.
   
   Madame Chiang's antagonistic stepson, Chiang Ching-kuo, would oversee a murderous suppression of dissidents as head of Taiwan's intelligence network. Paradoxically, as president, he later paved the way for the launch of Taiwan's democracy just before his death in 1988. That year, at age 90, she tried to rally Taiwan's Old Guard and prevent the onset of democracy she once spoke of so often. She failed.
   
   Madame Chiang lived out her days in New York, watching China and Taiwan as one became capitalist and the other became a democracy. Despite her illnesses, she lived until 2003.
   
   Ultimately, Madame Chiang was "a deeply flawed heroine," Li writes, "that rare creature who stuck resolutely to her beliefs, however misguided some of them may have been, through the decades and the trials."



3. Reading "Madame Chiang Kai-shek: China's Eternal First Lady" was like going through everything in the attic and leaving nothing unexamined. Tyson-Li covers every aspect of Madame Chiang's life without ever letting us forget that life's relevance for today. The "Dragon Lady's" significance never disappears in the wealth of the personal, historical, political, psychological, medical, and religious dimensions of her complex life. Her fanatical anti-Communism calls to mind Richard Nixon's personal crusade. Her use of religion to define her and her husband's sense of destiny parallels certain leaders who employ religious language for similar ends. Her manipulation of people and events exceeds the ambitions of any demagogue who has come to believe his or her own public statements.
   
   All this and more the author achieves with vivid prose that takes you into private parlors where Madame Chiang herself has invited you to tea, but leaves you feeling that just maybe everything you've heard is really true and that your hostess is neither monster nor statesman, but an enigmatic individual using the world as a stage to work out her insecurities.



4. 
   Laura Tyson Li has assembled a spectacular bio. It's page turner with the authority and detail of an encyclopedia. LTL has managed to keep her opinions out of the text. It isn't until the last chapter when through an informed discussion on the Madame's possible motivations that LTL becomes subjective.
   
   While almost every aspect of this life is intriguing, certain people and episodes stand out. I had forgotten Zhang Xueliang until he emerged after a 50 year house arrest, after which he & his wife move to Hawaii. Apparently he was able to keep his pre-war fortune, or had been cared for financially; he is deemed a friend of the Madame. (Another 5 year house arrest of a physician who botches an operation of the General suggests house arrest is a common punishment for "friends" and other professionals.) Madame's war time US appeal for funds, with its cross country caravan of staff whom MCKS treats "as coolies" is certainly an episode worth a small volume. (The $800,000 she raises goes to her personal account.) While the Wendel Wilkie relationship (true or false) is intriguing, I fixed on the William H. Donald relationship, which may have been a professional friendship and refuge from her husband's authoritarianism, but her end of life treatment of him suggests something else.
   
   There are a host of issues worthy of their own books. Perhaps these books exist but I don't know about them. One issue is the "arrival" of 2 million mainlanders to the island of Formosa, who's 7 million citizens seemed to have some degree of prosperity under the Japanese. While the Chaings arrive with resources, others huddle in makeshift places and cry at night. "Invasion" appears to be a better word for this arrival (particularly after 2/28), but it is certainly not portrayed as such (or allowed to be portrayed as such) by the Nationalists who felt entitled to rule and had the resources to make it so. Even later, Madame objects to the appointment of Taiwanese to government posts.
   
   Another issue deserving its own book is Madame's money. Whether or not the NYC exterminators actually saw it, a closet of gold bars is not far fetched. For maybe 30 years, Madame's "charity" received a % of all imports to Taiwan. There were several "vacation" homes in Taiwan, one built at a cost of $2 million. Then, the resources brought from the mainland to Taiwan. This money provided Madame with luxury and a large staff until her death. How large was it? How was it acquired (any from the US war assistance?) and where did it go?
   
   MCKS can be noted for her longevity alone. There must be something Guinness-worthy about her survival despite many years in a war zone, continued medical treatments, operations including several for breast cancer, nervous afflictions, a late in life automobile accident, lifelong cigarette smoking (and potential drug abuse) and at least one assassination attempt. Any one of these factors would tend to predict an early demise, not a life of 103 years.
   
   If you read this book, it's riveting, so be prepared to give it time. Also, the level of detail might make continuity difficult if you have to make gaps in your reading time.

5 comments about Thomas Jefferson: (The American Presidents Series).

1. Many may believe that political equality has existed in the United States since the very founding. Even ignoring the disenfranchisement of women and the subjugation of twenty percent of the population to slavery, that is a questionable belief. Many elites in the colonies, including many directly connected with the revolution, wanted to roll back any unleashed democratic impulses. The landed gentry, lawyers, the educated, merchants and creditors, and the like assumed that their superiority entitled them to control society's institutions including government. In their view, it was in the best interests of all if the unlearned population deferred to the better element of society. That was Thomas Jefferson's assessment of the political culture in the early years of the US.
   
   According to the author, one of Jefferson's main achievements was countering this presumption of elite control of society and politics. Though an aristocrat and intellectual, Jefferson developed a respect for the political rights and participation of the average citizen. Jefferson along with democratic political clubs infused with admiration for the French Revolution and a vigorous oppositional press formed an unofficial political party, the Republicans, to oppose the entrenched elites, known as the Federalists. The passage of the Sedition Act under Adams confirmed the Federalist fears and disdain for true political freedom.
   
   Jefferson dispensed with all symbols of aristocratic pretension when assuming the Presidency. Under Washington and Adams, the protocols of the European courts were rigorously followed. Jefferson understood that the style of his Presidency made a statement about whom or what was truly important.
   
   Jefferson was also very interested in the expansion of the US into the West beyond the Appalachian Mountains. He saw the West as a tremendous opportunity for hard-working average Americans, and not the province of elite speculators. The Louisana Purchase and the Lewis and Clark expedition were bold and promising acts.
   
   The Jefferson Presidency had to contend with the wounded Federalists, including their personal attacks concerning Jefferson's religion and character. In addition, the French-English conflict escalated in his second term and resulted in wholesale predations on American commercial ships. The Embargo Act, enacted to curtail opportunities for conflict, was highly unpopular and unsuccessful.
   
   The author does discuss the contradictions of Jefferson. Jefferson extolled the essential equality of all men and promoted widespread political participation. Yet he could not extend that concept fully to Negroes or to native Indians. It is a troublesome inconsistency, but the huge impact that Jefferson had on the direction that the political culture took in the US cannot be overlooked. It is inaccurate to suggest that the author excoriates Jefferson through a political correctness lens.
   
   The book is not an exhaustive study of Jefferson; it is not supposed to be. Jefferson does deserve to be rated as a president just behind FDR or Lincoln. His Presidency represents a decided shift from an elitist political culture to one far more democratic, hardly an insignificant development in a democracy. The author makes that point quite well.



2. Joyce Appleby's concise "Thomas Jefferson" is a well-written book mainly about Thomas Jefferson's presidency. Appleby understands Jefferson's place in history and gets the story right. I also recommend R.B. Bernstein's concise "Thomas Jefferson," which covers Jefferson's entire life better. But for a book on the presidency of Thomas Jefferson, Appleby's book is a fine choice.



3. First, let's begin with the premise that the collaberation of, at one time, in one relative place, and with (seemingly) one goal, those who have come to be collectively known as the Founding Fathers was, by any accounts, an extraordinary period in the history of humanity. A Dream Team, if you will.
   
   Second, let's remind ourselves that none of these men were devoid of their flaws. Many, in retrospect, carried their warts and blemishes with a sense of pride, if not prominence.
   
   While it is inevitable, and not inappropriate to find an interest in these founders and their various achievements so timely and exciting centuries after they did what they did, it is also inevitable that the lines of truth and accuracy have faded in the interim, and an honest interpretation of events between 1750 and 1820 requires of the interpretor an open mind, and a lack of preconceived notions.
   
   Ms. Appleby has not satisfied that requirement in her Jefferson interpretation.
   
   Appleby admits in the opening paragraphs to be an admirer, and continues to clarify that point throughout the book. She sets Jefferson apart from the other 'founders,' who are minimized, if not dismissed as having provided less,if any substance to the drive for that ultimate goal. Indeed, Appleby seems to be saying that the goals of the various gentlemen involved were so varied as to be in direct opposition to each other.
   
   Moreover, Appleby outrightly idolizes Jefferson. Her platitudes do not, however, shine any more light on the man, who certainly qualifies as one of the more secretive/introspective of the bunch. Instead, one is left the option of accepting Jefferson as a Moses-like character, or of choosing to look elsewhere for a more in depth assessment of this certainly great man.
   
   Other reviewers have noted her attention to Jefferson's issues with slavery, with women, with indians. These are discussed, but rather than in a way that would try to find a root cause, or to compare them with other frailties in his character, the effort seems to be to offer them as some offset to the bulk of the material, which is close to hero worship.
   
   There is enough information about Jefferson, even considering the depths of his persona, to identify some (but certainly not all) of the demons that tormented the man. And also enough information to know that Jefferson was not immune to crossing the lines of decorum that separate the common man from the political climber. But you wont find that discussion here.
   
   In the end, we have yet another portrait of this man, who deserves his place in the pantheon, but ther is no flesh, no blood, no heart. Just canvas.



4. In her study for the American Presidents series, historian Joyce Appleby observes (p.132) that "America's most pressing history assignment is coming to terms with Thomas Jefferson." Indeed the variety of reviews on this site, and their varying assessments of Jefferson, themselves bear witness to the difficulties of understanding our third president. Appelby has written a nuanced, brief study of Jefferson's presidency with all its complexities and contradictions. She is more sympathetic to Jefferson than are many other scholars. Yet, she also lets the reader see Jefferson's flaws and inconsistencies. Her book gives the reader new to Jefferson a good starting point for understanding not only Jefferson's presidency but also some lasting issues in American political thought.
   
   Jefferson wished to be remembered as the author of the Declaration of Independence and of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and as the Father of the University of Virginia. Appleby of necessity treads lightly on these and many other significant accomplishments to focus on Jefferson's fundamental ideas and on his presidency.
   
   For Appleby, Jefferson was the founder of participatory democracy. While the other Founders, including Washington, Adams, and Hamilton tended towards an elitist concept of government in which the educated and well-born exercised disinterested political control, Jefferson sought a much broader base for political power and activity. Jefferson wanted to break down distinctions based on wealth or background for political participation. In practice, as Appelby points out, Jefferson expanded the scope of political participation to include all white males. The converse is that he continued to exclude African Americans, Native Americans, and women. But he still was far more inclusive than his contemporaries. And Jefferson laid the foundation, in his "self-evident" truth that "All men are created equal" for his successors over many years to see his own shortcomings and to pass beyond them.
   
   On a broader level, Appleby insightfully describes Jefferson as the founder of one of the two main strains of American political thought.Jefferson was an enlightenment thinker who believed that people were essentially good and that they possessed the ability to understand and solve the issues confronting them. This is a key belief of most forms of political liberalism. Jefferson's opponents, exemplified by the Federalists and particularly by John Adams, evidenced a distrust of the human heart and an awareness of the mind's capacity for deception. They were inclined to put checks on the multitudes. Adams, as Jefferson's rival, has become the founding figure of the difficult and elusive part of American thought called conservatism. Jefferson was in his opposition to Washington and Adams and, in spite of himself, the founder of two-party politics in the United States.
   
   Appelby begins her account of Jefferson's presidency with the election of 1800, one of the closest and least understood in our history. Jefferson assumed the presidency with the goal of limiting government and increasing the autonomy of the individual. Appleby describes Jefferson's astounding Louisiana Purchase, which greatly increased presidential power, as intended to promote Jeffersonian goals by opening up land to settlement by small, independent yeoman farmers.Appleby discusses well the important constitutional changes that were wrought during Jefferson's time, some by Jefferson himself -- as in the Louisiana Purchase -- and some by his opponent, Chief Justice John Marshall.
   
   Jefferson's second term was plagued by his former Vice-president, Aaron Burr, who was tried for treason for attempting to lead a secession movement in the West. The nature of Burr's activities have always been obscure, but Jefferson actively sought his conviction. Burr was acquitted after a trial in which Chief Justice Marshall presided.
   
   The closing years of Jefferson's presidency saw a great increase in tension between the United States and both Great Britain and France as the two European powers refused to respect American neutrality on the high seas. Late in his administration, Jefferson secured the enactment of an Embargo which resulted in great domestic divisiveness and near economic ruin. The Embargo would soon lead under President Madison to the War of 1812.
   
   Appleby gives a brief account of Jefferson's life following his presidency, including the important correspondence he held with his former rival and friend, John Adams. Jefferson and Adams effected a reconciliation in the correspondence of their old age even though their philosophical differences remained. The reconciliation of these two Founders suggests that both Adams's conservatism and Jefferson's liberalism have much to contribute, in their insights and tensions, to a vibrant, thriving United States. Appleby's own sympathies in her fine thougtful study are clearly with Jefferson and with the liberal tradition.
   
   Robin Friedman



5. In his biography of Thomas Jefferson, titled "American Sphinx," Joseph Ellis tellingly says at one point (Page xvii): "As I have found him, there really is a core of convictions and apprehensions at his center. Although he was endlessly elusive and extraordinarily adroit at covering his tracks, there were bedrock Jeffersonian values that determined the shape of the political vision he projected so successfully onto his world. . . ."
   
   Joyce Appleby, author of this brief volume in The American Presidents series, attempts to capture that elusiveness. As noted many times, this series provides brief, readable, and often (but not always) insightful analyses--but at the cost of depth. For many, that tradeoff is well worth it, and I would rather someone read a brief biography and think a bit about the subject rather than not read anything at all about the subjects. Appleby begins by noting that Jefferson (Page 1) ". . .instilled the nation with his liberal convictions," the two most important, in the author's eyes, being participatory politics and limited government. These were clearly central aspects of Jefferson's political philosophy. However, his enmity toward a hierarchical, ordered society dominated by an elite is undermined by his ambivalent views on, for example, slavery. Jefferson, as a person, is someone who often manifest conflicting elements to his thinking.
   
   This book, to its credit, gives credit to Jefferson for his accomplishments, whether as ambassador to France, his role in authoring the Declaration of Independence, his advocacy for the political equality of white males--including those who were not persons of means. The work also juxtaposes those with his ambivalence about slavery (at one point, he fears that the country will have to suffer greatly for the "peculiar institution" and, at another point, he cannot conceive blacks and whites living together in amity and equality) and about gender (he could not conceive women as political equals, although he could treat individual women, such as daughters and Abigail Adams, with considerable respect). The book also straightforwardly addresses the issue of his relationship with one of his slaves, Sally Hemings. It also discusses his somewhat problematic behavior while serving in Washington's Cabinet, as he fought with Alexander Hamilton and authorized nasty newspaper attacks on the Administration.
   
   As President, he presided over some great moments--the Louisiana Purchase, the taking seriously of political freedoms, the advocacy of political rights for the less well born, the opening of the West, the exploration of Lewis and Clark, the successful prosecution of the war against the Barbary pirates. On the other side, his cold approach toward native Americans, his failed economic policies directed against the French and British as the United States became a pawn in their struggle for supremacy, his inability to address the slavery issue (although he pushed legislation to end the slave trade at the earliest time possible under the Constitution--introducing yet again his ambivalences).
   
   So, this is a useful short biography laying out this elusive character. Appleby meets, I think, the challenge of presenting this complex person in a slender volume. Worth looking at. . . .

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.

2 comments about Living for Change: An Autobiography.

1. For anyone who has ever wanted to work for social change, this life story by a wise and vital woman is a guidebook. As the book's cover tells us, "Grace Lee Boggs is a first-generation Chinese American who has been a speaker, writer, and movement activist in the African- American community for fifty-five years." After earning her Ph.D. in philosophy at Bryn Mawr in June of 1940, Grace wanted to become an activist. She moved to Chicago in the fall of 1940 and began working with the South Side Tenants Organization--a group that had been set up by the Workers Party.
   

   When distinguished "labor leader A. Phillip Randolph issued a call for blacks all over the country to march on Washington to demand jobs in the defense plants," more and more people began attending the Workers Party discussions in Chicago's Washington Park. Grace had been invited to participate in those discussions. She said, "The more I went out in the community and met people, the more inadequate I was beginning to feel." When Randolph's leadership of the March on Washington movement was successful and President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8802, Grace realized "the power that the black community has within itself to change this country when it begins to move. As a result, I decided that what I wanted to do with the rest of my life was to become a movement activist in the black community." To Grace, "Joining the Workers Party seemed a good way to start," and that's what she did, in order to get the political education she felt she needed.
   

   In the 1950s, Grace moved to Detroit where she worked on the Socialist Workers Party newsletter and met Jimmy Boggs, "A rank-and-file black Chrysler-Jefferson worker and community activist." Grace liked living in Detroit because it "felt like a 'Movement' city where radical history had been made and could be made again." She also liked working with Jimmy. Having worked closely with C. L. R. James, the intellectually powerful Socialist philosopher, Grace felt that her life had been "exciting but also extremely intellectual." She reasoned that she "needed to return to the concrete." Grace and Jimmy married in 1953 and began a life together that was rooted in the concrete reality of a major 20th-century industrialized city that had been abandoned by the large corporations that built it and by much of its white population.
   

   As Ossie Davis says in his foreword to Grace's book, "Through these pages walk causes, gatherings, confrontations, movements, and the men and women who made them: workers and students and committees of the People...." Studs Terkel has called Grace's book "More than a deeply moving memoir...." He said, "...this is a book of revelation."
   

   It is just that, for with passion and reason, Grace invites us to join her and Jimmy. She shows how they made "Detroit Summer" and "Gardening Angels" part of a new urban economic system, and she shows us how to interact multiculturally and multi-generationally. She doesn't merely talk about it--she does it and reports on its results. Grace Boggs educates us in her book and helps us see the possibilities of what we can do in our own cities.
   




2. I was impressed to find this book at my public library. It is an important remembrance of some of the movements that were occurring during the 1940's through the 1990's. Lots of acronyms! Some of the history of the splits in the Party got tedious.

   It was interesting to read about some of the options people had besides the Panthers, to hear the view of taking responsibilty, not only blaming the man for the situation. And to reaffirm the idea that a great shift in society needs to occur before we can have true equality.

   NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!

5 comments about American Spy: My Secret History in the CIA, Watergate and Beyond.

1. This man, even as he looked at death, could not even come close to the truth. If you buy this book call me i got a bridge for you...
   
   mmmm just to be straight i bought this book...so don't be a sucker like.....me



2. This book reads just like a mystery novel. It's easy to read and full of suspense, so I couldn't wait to turn the page to find out what happens. The pages on Watergate were especially suspenseful. This book was good from beginning to end. It's interesting to get the inside information on CIA training and activities from someone who was really there. Also, it was good to read about Watergate from someone who was really there and knows what happened. He also fills this book with stories about his personal life, his parents, wife and children. At the end, he offers his views on how to fix the agency today. This is a very good and easy to read book! I enjoyed every page of it.



3. "American Spy," confirms we are living in one of the most exciting eras of history.
   
   Per example, Hunt includes an intriguing insight in his final summation.
   
   "I have rewritten this chapter twice as events keep catching up to me," he begins. {Page 328, para. 2, line 19.} He continues on to note that suggestions he made in the previous versions actually were fulfilled before the publication of the book, causing him to rewrite those passages.
   
   Hunt's delving and the reviews available here on Amazon, make one immediately aware that this field of study is ripe for examination.
   
   One fascinating abscence from Hunt's chronicle is the chapter of various societal affiliations of the leading players, beginning with the past CIA directors, few, if any, of whom qualified for the position 'intelligence chief.' The question begged, that none in authority thought to ask, "Why?" A related list to be made as cross-reference with the names of these scions of snooping? Suggested entries would have to include the Council on Foreign Relations and, naturally, good ol' Skull & Crossbones. Any illumination as to where these configurations might lead?
   
   Just those two would have answered many of the questions Hunt posed throughout his familial confession. But, then, that perhaps reveals Mr. Hunt's true position : American Spy. And few spies tell all, American or otherwise.
   
   Good reading. So close to his own demise, Hunt could have entitled the work, "Racing Through Paradise." Had not, of course, his good friend and compatriot, {how telling that phrase becomes in context}, W.F. already absconded with the plume for one of his own tumblings.
   
   To those who cry 'surfeit' one need only close with Hunt's observation leading into his 'rewrite' remark. Just two paragraphs prior, Hunt waxes on the flood of information being created by the exponentially increasing technologies, casting all intelligence agencies adrift on this Sea of Portent.
   
   One revels in the closing scene from "Raiders of the Lost Ark" as Hunt opines, "...finally content {the CIA} to stamp them TOP SECRET and file them in massive storerooms, with only about 5 (sic.) percent of the information ever undergoing analysis."
   
   Oh, the tangled webs !
   
   TL Farley,
   author,
   When Now Becomes Too Late,
   Distant Reaches
   
   When Now Becomes Too Late { Hard copy }
   
   When Now Becomes Too Late {Kindle copy }
   
   { Prophecy : The Rapture In Brief }
   
   
   
   Distant Reaches
   
   { True Life Adventure In Ireland, Boston and On The North Atlantic }



4. This book is well written and contains a good narrative account of Watergate break in. Aside from that Mr. Hunt seemed torn at the time he wrote this book (near the end of his life), He critizices the leaking of the events a Abu Graihb (not the actual events), yet at the same time he is critical of the decision to go to war in Iraq and seems uncomfortable with certain aspects of GWB's expansion of FISA.
   Maybe these contradictions are due to his long career in CIA and other post that required deceitful and duplicitus words and actions. Whatever the reason this is still a book worth reading.



5. I have the greatest respect for Hunt.
   He was an insider on the JFK assassination and Watergate.
   In addition he was a very skillful writer and keen analyst of the personalities around him.
   
   This book takes on greater significance when Hunt's deathbed audio-taped confession of his involvement in the early planning for the Kennedy assassination is added to it.
   In this book he describes his ideas about the assassination as a "what if" or "it might have happened this way" story.
   Shortly after this he gave a confession to his son, that the "what if" story is the real story and he sat in on it.
   I think he was totally honest.

3 comments about Hugo Chavez: The Definitive Biography of Venezuela's Controversial President.

1. This book has been described as an unbiased look at Hugo Chavez but in my opinion it doesn't quite live up to that description. The Authors' Note touches upon the difficulty of such an endeavor, quoting Georg Lichtenberg from the 18th century: "Even impartiality is partial." My impression is that the authors recognized a need for change in Venezuela in the 1990s -- and may even have had sympathy for such change -- but they don't believe Hugo Chavez is the proper man to lead the nation forward.
   
   The authors' overriding point seems to be that Chavez is power mad, driven by an unquenchable desire for ever more power. An example: "He was the man of the hour and he enjoyed it, though he never lost sight of his real goal: power and everything that went with it." But it would be the rare political leader for whom this claim could not be made, especially one seeking such a major shakeup as Chavez. And while there is little doubt that Chavez enjoys being in the spotlight, it's also true that his antics bring worldwide attention to issues he feels need to be addressed. At another point in the book, the authors relate an unflattering personal incident then add, "All of this, however, remains in the murky terrain of speculation," as if the incident was too juicy to leave out, even though it was perhaps unfounded.
   
   Having said that, the bias I perceived did not much interfere with the book. For one thing, not all of Chavez's life story is admirable, such as the years spent plotting the failed 1992 coup while serving in the the military. As you are perhaps aware, in an odd turn of fate, this failed coup -- or more accurately, the televised "for now" speech given after his surrender -- turned Chavez into a folk hero and served as the springboard to his future political success.
   
   It is important to note that the book is much more a personal biography of Chavez than it is an analysis of his policy initiatives. Some of the most interesting information is from his childhood. One incident regarding his first day of school stands out: He and his grandmother were turned away from the schoolhouse because the boy's shoes were too shabby. Such an event leaves a lasting impression and helps explain Chavez's bonds to the nation's poor. As he grew older, Chavez became a voracious reader and read many books from the political left, these books being readily available at the home of two of his friends.
   
   While roughly the first half of the book is chronological, the chapters in the second half are topic oriented, such as the one devoted to Chavez's relationships with women. The departure from chronology is not much of a problem, but it did distract me earlier in the book when his second wife, Marisabel, was mentioned in passing, then mentioned again as an ex-wife -- all before she'd been introduced to the reader. I was suprised so little was written about the actual campaign leading up to the 1998 presidential election. We read that Chavez is polling at only 7% and then, before you know it, he is being sworn into office, his support having somehow risen to 56%. The 2002 coup attempt was of course covered, and here I felt the authors were quite successful in describing it with impartiality.
   
   This book was originally written in Spanish by the two Venezuelan journalists in 2004, updated in December 2006, and translated into English in 2007. It is packed with interesting quotes about Chavez from friends, foes, and family, and the authors took great pains to point out the quotees' biases toward Chavez, often using descriptive phrases such as "friend of Chavez" or "opponent of the Chavez government." The authors also did a nice job selecting the 30+ photos included in the book.
   
   All in all, the authors did a good job of covering Chavez, and I liked the fact that they were Venezuelan and lived through the times and events described in the book.



2. I bought this book for information for a twenty page college paper on Hugo Chavez, largely on the reccomendation of The Economist. This book was extremely helpful in providing me with an insight into Chavez's personality and potential motives. What I found most interesting was that it demolished the notion of an oil-intoxicated buffoon and replaced it with a shrewd, calculating leader who has mastered the art of theatrics for his own purposes. The authors make a strong case for regarding none of the contreversial president's actions as accidental or the rantings of a madman without sounding like conspiracy types. That being said, they also show a man with a highly unstable personality: volitile, manic,insecure, and in desperate need of affection. Chavez, by their telling, seems to be the product of a brilliant madness, one that produces a control freak who very well knows how to gain the control he needs. The book does not make this argument as carelessly as some; it draws extensively from interviews with those who knew him from childhood, or met him in the army, or through politics. The effect is that the anecdotes vividly potray the transformation from the poor llanero to the conteversial president bashing the rich while dressed in fine Italian suits. As has been stated by a previous reviewer, the book is not a political analysis, but understanding Chavez is crucial to understanding his politics. There is, for him, little seperation between personality and politics. I highly reccomend this book to anyone seeking an in-depth potrayel of the Venezuelan president.



3. this was an interesting biography. the first half of the book does get too involved with names, places, and dates; making it seem like technical reading. however, it does give the impression of an honest attempt to not only portray the man, but to also ponder the question of which way he's taking the country. the authors of the book seem somewhat comfortable with the view that what he says is popularist propaganda in an artistic sense. what hugo does - lives exhorbantly, travels in a giant airbus plane, nepotism for his entire family - leads to the conclusion that the attractions of power and wealth have truly taken over. his friend may be fidel castro, but unlike fidel, he likes money - a whole lot!

5 comments about Presidential Ambition: Gaining Power At Any Cost.

1. As we get closer to the next Presidential election, Shenkman's book offered me a different way to look at history and think about office of the President. The book gives brief and easy to follow history and enabled me to put past presidents in the context of the events that surrouned their term and really created their drive to the White House. I definitely recommend it.



2. Presidential Ambition is an elementary read on the politics of the presidency. It significantly misleads the reader into believing that they are going to read a political/psychological analysis of the presidency, by treating each president individually. Rather we get a historical recap of what events forced the president to act "ambitiously" and "without scruples." Although each time we are reminded that the President did not really want to act in this matter, but the events around him forced him to do so. Shenkman offer little in terms of analysis and my reasons for offering an average review is that while there is little in terms of political analysis or an a look into the presidential psyche (in terms of analyzing personal papers, decisions, etc.); Shenkman offers a very good history on the presidency in an easy to read manner. His anectodes are interesting and purposeful chosen to support his rather simplistic thesis that to be President one must be ambitious, and as the country grew more complex, the more ambitious the president. Ambitious as the sole reason for propelling a President to make any decision sets up an unrelaistic scenario that suggests the President acts unilaterally. It is a historical delight, but as a book of political sciecne, it is underwhelming and a travesty



3. In his book, Shenkman does an excellent job of ferreting out and explaining presidential ambition. While it may seem that Shenkman is concentrating on the negative, he is vigorously fair, and his ability to empathize with his subjects is his greatest asset. His central themes are:

   1.Our presidents have been (from Washington onward) insatiably ambitious men who have done not-so-nice things to get and maintain power;

   2.Their ambition and willingness to bend the rules often provided the leadership needed to steer the country through difficult times; and

   3.Changes in the media, immigration, political parties, and technology forced presidents to take extreme measures to get and keep power.

   What makes his book even more interesting is that he uses evidence from the historical record of presidents *before* Truman. And Shenkman spends a lot of time discussing presidents that most people know nothing about: Cleveland, Hayes, Buchanan, Polk (and his chapters on Buchanan and Polk are the best of the lot). This alone makes the book worth reading: I can't wait to suggest it to my blowhard uncle who claims Clinton was the first president besides Nixon to lie in office.

   So why 3 stars, given that I am so enthusiastic about the content and the rigor of Shenkman's work? His writing has been called "breezy" and "journalistic". And his prose is both of those things, but there are times in this book that Shenkman gets in his own way with his self-conscious prose. He overuses two devices that should never, ever be overused in prose--sentence fragments and slang. The first time he used the word "caved" to describe a presidential capitulation, it was refreshing, but by the fourth I was tired of it. More annoying was his continued use of sentence fragments. Some of his points flourished with the punchy use of such informal prose; but in other cases, the device felt to me like an affection-an affection unworthy of someone like Shenkman whose prose in other places was indeed breezy and graceful.

   That said, these problems are not serious enough to diminish the maturity of Shenkman's commentary. I think it is an excellent book for people (of any age) interested in the presidency. Some readers may be put off by Shenkman's moral relativism, and I guarantee the book would make for a lively discussion for a book group.




4. This book offers a fascinating insight into the lives of some of the men who have held the office of President. The author maintains that as times have gotten more complex, presidents are pressured to break the rules, lie and lend themselves to scandal to maintain political power. Shenkman poses and interesting question when he asks if the system is flawed or the individuals. He fairly concludes that both are flawed and proceeds to give example after example of how different presidents manipulated situations and circumstances to achieve and maintain their presidential ambitions.

   The thing that I liked best about this book is that it spotlights some obscure presidents that you rarely hear about such as James K. Polk, James Buchanan and Chester A. Arthur. I particularly found the chapter on Franklin Pierce very interesting. He had high presidential ambitions but at the same time, he had to keep his ambitions a secret from his wife because she did not want him involved in politics.

   The book does an excellent job of covering presidential amibitions up until the Eisenhower administration. After this, the author gives an abbreviated view of the Cold War, Vietnam and Watergate. I found this to be strange because it would seem that this period of American history would provide the most blatant examples fo men manipulating events and circumstances to maintain power and shape policy. In anycase, this was the only shortcoming that I didn't like but overall it is a very good easy to read book that is well worth your time.




5. I am conflicted on this book review. My first response would be that I was disappointed with the book. The title and dust jacket lead me to believe that the author was going to cover story after story of mean, nasty, back stabbing methods past Presidents had employed to get their way. Real tricky Dick Nixon type of stuff that makes people who are skeptical of politicians stand up and cry out "look at those scum!". What I got was a chapter length review of some of the past Presidents from Washington to Ike. Sure it was easy to read, but it did not have enough detail to really get into the topic. The author presented his book in a very nice and calm manner. My opinion is that with a book covering this subject, the author needs to be frank, direct and maybe have a little chip on his shoulder to get the right level of distain in his writing.
   
   This author had not one disagreeable thing to say in the whole book. I got to the mid point and started to think that this author would be hard pressed to speak of criminals in a harsh tone. On the other hand the author did have a very easy to read and almost conversational way of writing. The pages flowed along and before I knew it I had completed the book. Did I learn a lot from the book, well some, but again not what I wanted. I wanted to sit and gawk at a train wreck and this author presented a view to a tea party. He was just so darn nice that I feel some obligation to give him a high mark on the rating.