5 comments about John Quincy Adams: (The American Presidents Series).

1. The author is best known as the biographer of Jackson, so understandably he shows some favoritism for Jackson.
   
   He covers the essentials of JQA's life but very briefly as intended. The book serves its purpose as a concise biography of a president whose life was intimately connected with the history of the first six decades of the United States.



2. I am familiar with the concept of the American Presidents Series, whereby each chief executive is given a relatively short and concise treatment. Perfect for the history buff that might not want to invest several weeks in reading a two volume discourse on the life and times of James K. Polk.
   
   John Quincy Adams was an important American statesman during a turbulent period of American history. His heritage as a son of Founding Father John Adams, coupled with a virtual lifetime of public service is certainly deserving of study (granted, for a serious history buff, probably more than that provided in this work). I was therefore somewhat disappointed when upon receipt of the book, it was no larger than a mere pamphlet.
   
   The Amazon synopsis lists it as being composed of 196 pages. I can't imagine how this number was arrived at. The text of the book comes in at 155 pages. Even including the "Editor's Note", endnotes, milestones, bibliography and index, only 173 are consumed. If you add the title page, all the blank pages at the beginning and end of the book AND the front and back cover, you still can't come up with 196 pages. Therefore, what you have is a very short biography that is actually over 20% shorter than advertised. Certainly understandable in the case of some of the "sketchier" Presidents, but John Quincy Adams?
   
   Adams, born into the illustrious family of John and Abigail Adams, was raised to lead a life in politics. It is an unusual set of circumstances that resulted in Adams's presidency actually being viewed as the least successful period of his life, rather than its pinnacle. Adams was an accomplished diplomat from an early age, spending productive time in all the European capitals throughout the early American administrations. He finally served as Secretary of State under James Monroe, a recognized stepping stone to the presidency.
   
   His election in 1824, by a bitterly divided House of Representatives, ushered in a period of political bitterness and infighting astonishing in its ferocity. His personal feuds with Andrew Jackson and his supporters are possibly the most vicious in political history. Adams's presidency is generally viewed as quite ineffective. His refusal to take advantage of political patronage and his naivety in matters of political strategy doomed him to serve a single term.
   
   Following his presidency, Adams was elected to represent the state of Massachusetts in the House of Representatives, where he continued to be a thorn in the side of his opponents, from all aspects of the political spectrum. The single personality trait of Adams highlighted throughout this work is independence. His refusal to abide by party lines and forge long lasting alliances resulted in his failure to govern firm majorities throuhgout his career.
   
   He was a henpecked son and, according to the author, a failure as a father and husband. He comes across many times as a sanctimonious Puritan and devolved later in life into an unpleasant, irascible, back bencher. Nevertheless, he was a seminal figure in early 19th century American history and deserving of more than 155 pages of treatment.
   
   Finally, a note on the author's style. Given the brevity of the work and the scope of Adams's life, it is not surprising that the writing sometimes feels clipped and brusque, moving quickly from topic to topic. On several ocassions, the author begins paragraphs with short, declarative statements such as, "What a disaster!", "What an opening!", "That did it!" (twice), "Superior management!", "What idiocy!", that lent a jarring almost inappropriately informal tone to the writing.
   
   All in all a relatively unsatisfactory work. Had the author in fact taken 196 pages to present the subject, perhaps it would have been better received. Nevertheless, if you want an ultra quick and dirty synopsis on the life and political career of John Quincy Adams and only have 5-6 hours to invest, this may be the best you could do.



3. Robert Remini's brief study of John Quincy Adams (1767-1848) is part of the American Presidency Series edited by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. The series has the commendable aim of introducing the reader to each of the Presidents in a volume of short scope. The broader aim, I think, is to reawaken an appreciation of the history of our country and to stimulate reflection on the American experience. Thus, each volume tries to present a story of a life and also to explain briefly what is unique about each President and makes him worthy to be remembered.
   
   Remini gives an excellent discussion of John Quincy Adams's service to the United States, both during his Presidency and before and after it. The aspect of JQA's public service that stands out, both in his Presidency and otherwise, is his commitment to American Nationalism. By this I mean a devotion to creating a strong, united nation for all the people to promote the public welfare. JQA worked diligently to advance the interests of the entire American people, as he saw these interests, rather than to be a tool of any faction or party or momentary passion. Much of the time, he succeeded.
   
   As President, JQA advocated the creation of public works and improvements to link the country together. He was a strong supporter of education, scientific advancement, and learning. He wanted the Federal government to play an active role in supporting these ends and worked towards the creation of an American university. (After his Presidency he was a strong advocate for the creation of the Smithsonian Institution.)
   
   Before he assumed the Presidency, Adams served as the Secretary of State under James Monroe. He worked for the goal of American Nationalism by expanding the boundaries of the United States through a skillful exercise of diplomacy until they extended to the Pacific Ocean. JQA also was instrumental in the formulation of the Monroe Doctrine.
   
   Following his presidency. JQA served as a Congressman from Massachusetts. He distinguished himself in working for the anti-slavery cause and, specifically, by his tireless opposition to the "gag rule" which aimed to prevent critical discussion of slavery-related issues in the halls of Congress.
   
   Remini presents his material in a way that focuses on this theme of JQA's public service and on its nationalistic aspirations . He also points out how and why JQA failed to realize many of his goals, particularly during his term as the sixth President (1825-1828) Adams was named President by the House of Representatives following a highly contested election. It was alleged that he struck a "corrupt bargain" with Henry Clay, who became Adams's Secretary of State. This "corrupt bargain" doomed the Adams Presidency and tarnished both Adams's and Clay's careers.
   
   Adams was also highly opinionated and stuffy and gave the impression of aloofness. He was not a good politician and lacked a certain ability to compromise or to work cooperatively with others. At one point Remini writes (p. 110): "It is really impossible to think of any other president quite like John Quincy Adams. He seemed intent on destroying himself and his administration. By the same token, it is difficult to think of a president with greater personal integrity." JQA was defeated for a second term by Andrew Jackson in a bitterly fought campaign. Among other things, Jackson possessed abundant popular appeal and charisma, in sharp contrast to JQA's aloof, intellectual character.
   
   While Adams's Presidency failed, his goals and ideals were good. They lived on and deserve studying and remembering.
   
   Remini also gives a good summary of Adams's personal life, adopting some of the psychohistory of JQa's recent biographers. He points out the stresses that Adams endured from his famous father and mother and the pressures placed upon him and his brothers for high achievement. JQA also imposed these pressures and expectations, alas, on his own children. There is a good discussion of Adams's failed love affair as a young man --probably the one passion of his life -- and of his subsequent marriage to Louisa Johnson. Remini describes JQAs extensive intellectual interests, his tendencies to anger and to depression and he links these traits in a sensible way to the failings of Adams's Presidency.
   
   This is an excellent study of JQA which captures in short compass the essence and character of his contribution to the United States. Readers who want to learn more about JQA -- with a focus on his service as Secretary of State and as Congressman from Massachusetts may wish to read the two-volume study by Samuel Flagg Bemis: "Joh Quincy Adams and the Foundations of American Foreign Policy" (1949) and "John Quincy Adams and the Union" (1956).
   
   Robin Friedman



4. This biography of John Quincy Adams, referred to as JQA throughout much of the book, is quite a treat. It astonishes me that so much information can be packed into such a short book (155 pages of text). Still, from my perspective, this is a satisfying book.
   
   John Quincy Adams was truly an exceptional character to study. As a young person, he accompanied his father, John Adams, to Europe to help him in his diplomatic duties. JQA learned an immense amount, developed many useful skills (including learning different languages), and began his career of public service at a very young age.
   
   Born in 1767, he lives a long and full life, dying in 1848. His coffin contained language was written by Daniel Webster (whom Adams detested) (Page 155): "A citizen of the United States, in the Capitol of Washington, February 23, 1848, Having served his country for half a century, And enjoyed its highest honors."
   
   A sampling of some of his accomplishments: His service abroad while in his teens, going to Russia apart from his father to serve as an assistant to the American ambassador there (the ambassador did not speak French, and JQA's command of that language was valuable in the Russian court); His first tour of Congress was controversial as his independence led both parties to sometimes get irritated with him; His time as Secretary of State, during which he developed the Monroe Doctrine; His controversial election as President and the rough politics of his one term; his return to the House of Representatives as a cantankerous and independent Representative. His return to Congress after serving as President is extraordinary, not repeated afterwards by any former President. In his term, old as he was, he served as a stalwart against slavery, and near the end of his life (as viewers of the movie "Amistad" know) he argued before the Supreme Court of the miscarriage of justice against the enslaved Africans who had seized control of the slave ship.
   
   All in all, a quick read and a pretty satisfying volume.



5. One can't help but view this biography as if Remini were defending the honor of an individual he clearly found wanting. John Quincy is so much the prideful product of his famous forebears (must read McCullough's John Adams first), that he can't help but fall short in his own right. Particularly insightful is Quincy's stubborn wrong-headedness in his managing of his cabinet appointments, which contributed greatly to a sour legacy. Remini does serve JQ well in praising his foreign policy successes as ambassador and Sec. of State, and provides enlightened review of his post-presidency legislative terms.....but clearly the tone is condemning of a most ascetic and belligerent man reaching beyond his natural skills as a diplomat to underachieve as an executive.

5 comments about James Madison: A Biography.

1. I read this book working toward my goal of reading a biography of each President. I'm now nearly half way though and this was by FAR the toughest one to finish.
   
   I read Stephen Ambrose's entire three-part, 18000 page series on Nixon faster than I read this nearly 700 page book on Madison. I can't say I wasn't warned because all the reviews said it was deep and detailed but I didn't want to take the easy way out because the experts say this is by far the book to read on Madison.
   
   It was truly a very well researched and informative book. However, there were chunks of the book that were too detailed and moved too slowly. For instance, I don't care what Dolley Madison wore to balls or how the decorations looked or what political couples attended and what the other wives were wearing. I also don't care how tough the trip was for everyone to get everywhere and how Madison got sick everytime the wind blew the wrong way on the Potomac.
   
   What I do care about is how Madison worked with Jefferson and others to shape our form of government. I care about his time in congress, how he handled his duties during the revolution, the circumstances that lead to his Presidency, how he managed the war of 1812, what role he played in critical issues such as the development of the national bank and the treatment of American sailors by the British navy. I also really wanted to know about his relationship with other well known historical figures.
   
   All of that information is in there but it is buried amongst stuff that to be honest I just didn't care about.
   
   Ketcham is obviously "The Man" when it comes to James Madison and I'm quite sure in historical circles this book is highly respected because it is such a complete bio of him. But, it definitely isn't for your average reader.
   
   For those new bio readers interested in Presidents I would suggest Robert Dallek's book on JFK or Jead Edward Smith's bio of Grant. Those are detailed but they are told with the backdrop of better known periods - Civil War/Reconstruction and WWII/Cold War. Those are more interesting periods I think and those bios seemed to move faster.
   
   This book was good but you've got to be ready to get into it and pay attention because the details and stuff that you really care about can be hidden and very laborious at times to get to.



2. I will start this review by saying that this book is not for the casual reader. To enjoy this book, you have to have a serious interest in the life and political thought of James Madison. The writing style, while certainly not as bad as other reviews have stated, is a straightforward academic presentation that at times can be a bit tedious. That being said, in terms of content this is as excellent a one volume biography as I believe you will find. Ketcham manages to present a full portrait of James Madison with thoughtful and excellent analysis in a surprisingly short amount of text. After reading this volume, I came away with a much better understanding of, and appreciation for, James Madison. Unlike other biographers, who sometimes waste more text than necessary on their own analyses, Ketcham interjects his analysis sparingly but brilliantly.
   
   My minor criticisms are similar to others. The beginning of the book is the most difficult part to read and reflects Ketcham's main weakness as an author - narrative biography. This is especially pronounced in one instance, where he tells the story of Madison's first trip to Princeton, admitting that the story is based on his own best construction of what probably happened since no records are available, and then proceeds with the most boring narrative imaginable. If you are going to tell a conjectural story, at least make it interesting. Ketcham also overuses to annoyance the term "bilious" and frequently uses the word "insure" incorrectly where "ensure" should be used.
   
   Ultimately, my criticisms of this volume are more for providing a two sided review than real detractions. Ketchams volume, while not lively reading, is a superb biography and undoubtedly the best one volume biography of James Madison currently available. Indeed, this biography is perfectly in line with the personality of Madison - while not exciting for its own sake, thoroughly well researched and executed, and ultimately essential.



3. James Madison was the man who did research and wrote for the politicians of his era. He was the brains behind the speaker (John Adams), the warrior (George Washington), and the diplomat (Thomas Jefferson). He held true to the republican principles, to a fault, literally.
   
   This book can be tedious. It is dense. But it is the very best explanation of the circumstances leading to the War of 1812 I have ever found.
   
   Plan on having another book going at the same time you are reading this one. Or, plan on some good naps along the way because it is complex reading.



4. Ralph Ketcham's JAMES MADISON: A BIOGRAPHY was originally published in 1971 and was a national book award nominee. This biography is comprehensive (671 pages), and looks like it is the result of long study of our fourth president by this professor of history emeritus at my graduate school alma mater, Syracuse University.
   
   This presidential biography took me 10 months to read (about halfway through, I quit reading it straight and took other book "breaks" between chapters), but I found it enjoyable. Ketcham really sketches a detailed portrait of Madison's life by closely examining almost all of its aspects, from what life must have been like for him growing up in Orange County, Virginia, to his work as "Father of the Constitution," his work on the Federalist Papers, his work as Secretary of State and as president, as well as a lengthy final chapter on his productive and active retirement (including his involvement with the founding of the University of Virginia).
   
   This is not a fast read, clearly, but I can't help imagine that it is the definitive work on Madison's formative years, education, political career and contribution to our country. I learned a great deal about his relationships with the other framers of our democracy, his Republicanism, his stance on separation of church and state as well as slavery.
   
   An interesting thing about Madison, to me, is that he was a slight man, who was often ill with some kind of recurring "attacks." He was only 5'4" and weighed about 100 pounds, and he did not have a charismatic presence or strong speaking style. While a man who made this wee of a physical impression would not be likely to be president today in our media age, this book demonstrates the level to which we owe Madison for the shape of our government, political system and political philosophy today. He informed the development of a free America at every step of the way through his keen intelligence, his ability to communicate his arguments and his affiliations with the other framers, who liked and respected him for his intellect and dedication to the cause of democracy.
   
   I found one of the most interesting sections to be on Madison's presidency during the War of 1812. Ketcham details the war's events along with the political temperature in the nation at the time, including the opposition to Madison and his decision to go to war with England at this time. I always find it fascinating that the men and women we venerate as the founders of our nation were subjected to similar (if not worse) public abuse for their decisions -- decisions that our knowledge of history help us understand in a way their contemporaries could not. Madison took a great deal of criticism over this war, but by the end of his presidency, he was triumphant. This chapter also illustrates some ways in which Madison's inability to act without feeling he had clearly thought through all ramifications hurt him and his administration at times. (I also noted that several Little Rock streets are named for War of 1812 military leaders, which made this book more "local" to me.)
   
   While Ketcham details the loss of an early love of Madison's when he traces the development of this relationship with some personal detail, Ketcham does not include a great deal about Dolley Madison in this book (her presence here does not compare to Abigail Adams' presence in McCullough's John Adams), which I found somewhat disappointing. Their family life is interesting, as she was a widow when he married her with a son, Payne Todd, who later became a lazy, shiftless, wanderer and gambler, who had to be bailed out of quite a few fiscal scrapes by his stepfather. Dolley and James Madison never had children together, and the portrait this book paints of her is fainter than I had expected.
   
   This book is the book I would recommend to anyone who really wanted to dig into the life, career and impact of James Madison. The writing is authoritative and objective, giving the reader a sound education in our fourth president. While this book is not my favorite of the four biographies on presidents I have read so far, I think Adams and Madison are my favorite individuals I've studied in this effort to read about each president of the United States.



5. This book took me forever to read. I am not a slow reader.
   
   This book is a great book to get at who was Madison, what did he accomplish, how did his mind work, etc. But, it is not very entertaining or any kind of a fast read.
   
   If you want to get to know Madison, this is a wonderful resource. I agree with other reviewers that his early life is a series of guesses by the author and seems a bit dreamlike in the retelling. Not a huge flaw, but I am sure someone can do better in the future.
   
   This is a scholar's biography. As a scholar's biography is rates as an A or A-, as a fun read it rates more like a B-. As I work through biographies of all the Presidents, this was one I needed to read - I do not think I will read it again.
   
   Joseph Valentine Dworak

5 comments about George Washington: The Founding Father (Eminent Lives).

1. This is a great small book on Washington, things I didn,t know about him.
   Easy to read, too, in a short time.



2. Paul Johnson has written one superb book, The Birth of the Modern, one monstrosity, Intellectuals, and quite a shelf of books well worth reading even when they are blinkered by ideology. This chapbook biography of George Washington, unfortunately, is one of his shallower efforts.
   Johnson declares his intention of portraying Washington as less of "a remote and mysterious figure" than others have. The Washington that he gives us, however, is such a paragon that I for one long for a little flesh to contain all that noble blood. Johnson's Washington is above all an English land-owner of the early 18th C, a properly insular squire, a gentleman of much Whiggish convictions but Tory instincts, much like Johnson himself. It's not an inconsistent portrayal. However, Johnson is dead wrong about some very significant aspects of Washington's thought and about pre-revolutionary America.
   
   Johnson correctly focuses on Washington's self-interest in westward expansion of Virginia into the Ohio Valley as a prime reason for the rebellion against English rule. But with his ever-present British chauvinism, Johnson completely misrepresents the situations of the French and the Indians in the 1760s, and fails to grasp the important conflicts that already separated Americans of the seacoast like Washington from Americans of the interior. For a thorough and intelligent examination of these matters, I strongly recommend: The Middle Ground, by Richard White.
   
   Johnson is quite far from the mark on the question of the role of slavery among the causes of the revolution. His is the old-fashioned apologetic position, that slavery was already on the wane at the time of Washington, that the Founding Fathers foresaw its gradual extinction, and that only the cotton gin made later events tragic. In fact, the defense of slavery as an economic institution and the fear of British emancipationism were significant motivators for Southern participation in the Revolution. See: Forced Founders, by Woody Holton
   
   Johnson is also altogether too willing to credit Washington with sincere humantitarian impulses toward his own slaves. The truth is that Washington took less-than-kindly steps to retrieve runaways, was outraged by the efforts of the English to recruit slaves to run away and fight against their 'masters', and made every possible effort to seize runaways and free Blacks from their English protectors, after the end of fighting, before such 'property' could be carried beyond his reach. For a powerful account of the Revolutionaries' hypocrisy toward the rights of man, see: Rough Crossing, by Simon Schama, which also tells the story of the fate of the expatriated African-Americans in Canada and eventually in Sierra Leone.
   
   One amusing aspect of Johnson's book, by the way, is his hardly-concealed contempt for Thomas Jefferson -- another of those "Intellectuals" Johnson so thoroughly detests. Washington apparently developed quite an open scorn for Jefferson also, in his later years, a scorn I've come to share with both the author and his subject. The title to read on this matter: Jefferson's Secrets, by Michael Burstein.



3. A fascinating look into one of the most fascinating and important characters in American history - George Washington. If you're looking for a good, brief overview of why George Washington was such an integral part of the foundation of our country, this little book is a good place to start. Johnson examines the early life of Washington, including his early military career and how that coupled with his surveying acumen played greatly in this vision for this nation. The one concept I took away from this book was that Washington was a man of vision. He was constantly looking westward with an eye on expansion and the English and French efforts to contain the early colonies was a key factor in the revolution. Washington was also a man of significant means and status in the early colonies - but, one of the greatest commentaries on his character is his constant refusal to remain as president beyond the first two terms. He was a man who had a vision for a great republic and a man who surrounded himself with the best and the brightest of his day. Washington was a great leader and was the man for the job for just such a time.



4. Johnson appears to be quite the patriot. It's natural that he would offer a very favorable position of Washington in this narrative. As an African American and a student of history, it's hard for me to swallow this portrait of Washington whole. Johnson at times snidely derides recent historical efforts to show negative aspects of Washington's slaveholding that undermine his eventual emancipation of slaves. Johnson also appears to be very favorable toward centralizing federalists such as Hamilton, who he gives credit for saving the American economy, and Washington at the expense of Jefferson and Madison. In Johnson's view, it's Washington who's doing the work and saving the country and those idealistic Francophile Democrats who are flirting with its destruction. As one of those who would have been 3/5 of a person back in the Constitutional times, I have to be a little more critical of the compromises that created the racial conflict. I do applaud Johnson's recognition that Washington missed some opportunities to stem the tide of slavery as president.
   
   The best part of Johnson's analysis is the compare and contrast aspects to Napoleon. Showing the tightrope that Washington walks between choosing democracy that sacrifices Napoleon's power and seeking a strong executive branch that occasionally exceeds Napoleon's power is very helpful indeed. Napoleon is only as strong as his last battle. Washington is always as strong as his elected position and well-earned prestige. There's a very cogent statement in the middle of the book at how the British were stupid in not offering Washington a major position in their military soon after his successes in the French and Indian War. As we reflect on our military and politicians in present times, it's important that we realize that when we become self-satisfied and scorn merit for promotions, we risk birthing the revolutionaries who may overturn our social order and way of life.
   
   Washington's quite a figure and this is a satisfactory introduction. I look forward to pursuing more of the resources described in other reviews such as Giordano's especially helpful review recommending David Hackett Fisher's "Washington's Crossing".
   
   3.5 stars
   
   --SD



5. This is a small book, both in dimensions (5 1/4" x 7 3/8") and length (126pp), so it is a relatively quick read. It seems to be well-researched and is quite readable, as is to be expected of anything by the esteemed Dr. Johnson.
   
   Surprisingly for something so short, the book does span Washington's entire life. It begins by giving some background information on the preceding two or three generations on his father's side, then proceeds with his birth, family situation, and education. Sources for information on Washington's childhood are sparse, so this section is understandably thin. Johnson does take time, though, to dispel a couple prominent myths about his subject.
   
   The book's chapters are as follows:
   
   One: A Young Gentleman's Youth in Virginia
   Two: A Gallant Young Colonel and His Rich Wife
   Three: Slaveowner, Agricultural Pioneer, Builder
   Four: Commander in Chief and Victor
   Five: Creating a Nation: Theory
   Six: Creating a Nation: Practice
   Seven: Last Years
   
   As might be guessed from the chapter titles, the structure of the book is generally chronological. Johnson ably weaves in other information that doesn't necessarily belong to a specific period in Washington's life (e.g., his developing thoughts on the socio-economic and governmental future of the new nation). There is a good mix of information on Washington's private life & business dealings, as well as his military & governmental service. Naturally, some subjects get more attention than others, and every reader will wish that something in particular had received more (or less). But, I thought Johnson did a fairly balanced job, while understandably weighted a bit more on the years 1775 to 1797 (i.e., Revolutionary War thru Constitutional Convention thru Presidency).
   
   There are a couple of typos, which should have been caught by a copy editor, but that is to be expected in any book, really. I noticed a couple places where the author repeated a piece of information. For example, with regard to Washington's physical presence, chapters one & two both quote Benjamin Latrobe saying, "Washington had something uncommonly majestic and commanding in his walk, his address, his figure and his countenance." I found this a little annoying, but not really a big deal.
   
   There is a brief bibliography of recommended reading at the end but no end/footnotes or index. In a more comprehensive work, this would bother me, but not for something that is meant to be such a brief introduction to the life of the subject.
   
   Overall, a fine introduction to the life of George Washington, and definitely recommended.
   
   Content: 4.5
   Style & Structure: 4
   Average: 4.25, rounded down to 4

5 comments about Winston Churchill: A Life (Penguin Lives).

1. Publisher's Weekly is entirely mistaken, in their comments above, in suggesting that Sir Winston Churchill once belonged to the Labour Party.
   
   He never did, of course.
   
   Churchill did, however, cross the floor to join the Liberal Party, often making common cause there with his Liberal ally David Lloyd George. He left the Liberals and returned to the Conservative Party (at first, as a "Constitutionalist") in the 1920's...
   
   Alan D. Hyde



2. Let me make clear at the outset that I am no historian. Indeed, I wouldn't even qualify as an amateur historian. I am just your average 30-something fairly ignorant reader living a period of love for more or less recent history. Given this premise, I found this little book quite perfect for what I was looking for.
   
   This is a short, entertaining, and VERY well written biography of one of the greatest men in the 20th century. Because of the serious limits of my knowledge on the subject, I certainly cannot judge on the accuracy of the reports. However, to the best of my knowledge, the author is considered a reputable WWII historian. Indeed I liked this book so much that I also purchased his history of WWII. You can read this book in a day, and it will entertain you like a good novel, while also informing you as few novels would do.
   
   I would not pay too much attention to those reviewers that complain about this book not delving into Churchill's shortcomings as a man or as a politician. This is a very small book, about 190 small-format pages. You can hardly expect a comprehensive treatise from such a book. Also, I suspect that emphasizing Churchill's shortcomings would be like emphasizing Hitler's moments of tenderness with his lovers or with some German children during the Nazi regime. I mean, they surely happened, but it's not what you want to spend pages on, if you have only limited space to devote to the topic, isn't it? Besides, even if the Churchill that emerges from this book is certainly a truly great man, he does not emerge as a perfect great man. To me that was enough, and I am glad I read this book.
   
   I am grateful to the author, and I highly recommend it to anyone looking for a short, beautifully written biography of this man, to whom I certainly owe something...



3. Doubtless this biography is insufficient to really understand Churchill, but for those who are fairly ignorant of the man, it provides a useful quick sketch, and perhaps a jumping off point for further reading.



4. In 1895 when his father died, the sickly and indifferent 21-year-old military cadet Winston Churchill was flat broke, the legacy of a father who was a compulsively extravagent wastrel.
   
   Lord Randolph had been syphilitic since early youth. His mother, American-born Jennie Jerome whose father was a stockbroker and part-owner of 'The New York Times', was always attracted to men other than her husband or her sons (Winston, born 1874, and John Spencer, born 1880). In modern terms, they were trailer trash; in Phoenix, Sheriff Joe would have set aside a bunk in his tent-city jail for Winston.
   
   But, instead of slums, Winston was born and brought up in Blenheim Palace, built 1704-22 and still one of the great estates of England. American ex-presidents get palatial libraries as their memorials; the British rewarded their leaders with mansions and great estates. Blenheim Palace was one of the finest, far better than the estates later awarded to Nelson and Wellington.
   
   Perhaps it was the milieu of Blenheim Palace, but Churchill matured into a man absolutely convinced of the majesty of the British virtues of patriotism, loyalty, courage and fair play. For him, being British meant manliness, courage, tenacity and ultimate moral decency. It resonated with the vigorous American spirit of Theodore Roosevelt and the beauty of the strenuous life.
   
   President George Bush is reported to keep a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office; perhaps as a reminder of the complete contrast to himself. Bush ducked the Vietnam War in the Texas Country Club Air Guard; Churchill eagerly sought war, even though he hated it.
   
   Like Ulysses S. Grant, Churchill was a gifted wordsmith instead of a stumblebum. He free-lanced as a journalist while serving as a British officer and was sometimes earning 20 times his military pay. He never stopped learning, he wanted facts, order, reason. His mother sent him crates of books while he was on duty, and he devoured them all.
   
   Gen. Sir Herbert Kitchener described him as a "medal-hunter" and "self-advertiser" who was "super-precocious" and "insufferably bumptious." It was a good assessment. But, the public loved his books and even the Prince of Wales praised him. Whatever one thinks of Churchill, his career and successes are due to his own effort, intelligence, work and nerve.
   
   In brief, this is the story of a man who might well have ended up as a Soho souse, but instead became the greatest man of the past century. He did it through his own efforts, not because of Daddy's friends, money or ability to pull strings.
   
   This book defines the character of a great man.



5. I've never been a big fan of Winston Churchill, but after reading esteemed historian John Keegan's succinct biography of the man, I must say that I like AND respect him just a little bit more. Keegan himself confesses that he never thought much of old Winston until he stumbled across an old recording of his speeches (in NYC of all places) and realized what a gifted and inspirational orator and leader he was. He led his beloved Britain through her darkest hours in modern history, to a victory that was anything but assured. The people seemed to genuinely love him, and his sentiment was seemingly mutual.
   
   His years as Prime Minister during WW2 are the most well known, but Churchill led an amazingly full life, and his life of public service began way back in the late 19th century. Keegan describes how the young Winston, who did poorly in school, but had an undeniable intelligence, educated himself in politics, history and the English Classics. He was a romantic who was in love with his small island nation, and he dedicated his life to it. He was a brave soldier who served in numerous wars, including WW1, and while it would be fair to say he was a little too fond of war, he was no different from the average English officer of the time in this regard. In my eyes, his major fault was his hypocrisy. It just seems hard to reconcile his staunch imperialism with his constant talk about the virtues of freedom and liberty, and how Britain was the main proponent of such things. I would have liked for Keegan to address this point a bit more, but for such a short biography, I can let it slide.
   
   I was intrigued to learn that Churchill and IRA founder Michael Collins were on friendly terms and greatly admired each other. In fact, Churchill apparently had a "gut sympathy for fighters" which is why he had more respect for the Irish and Boers of South Africa than he did for Ghandi and his passive movement in India.
   
   Anyways, the book is extremely well written and entertaining, and I found it to be an overall excellent introduction to the life of one of the most important figures of the 20th century. 4.5 stars.

5 comments about Mugabe: Power, Plunder, and the Struggle for Zimbabwe's Future.

1. As a Zimbabwean who had to leave the country due to it's current troubles, it was very difficult for me to pick up this book and look for answers to some of the many questions I had about what went wrong in my homeland. However, I came away fascinated by Martin Meredith's careful piecing together of the last three or four decades of Zimbabwe's history. He has assembled a brilliant account of the rise and rule of Mugabe and his Zanu-PF party, and has, for the most part, accurately detailed the major events that have occurred since Mugabe came to power in 1980. The book is not only an account for Zimbabweans, but is written so that any person who is not informed of Zimbabwe's present crises will receive an in-depth look of all that has gone wrong in what was once "the breadbasket of Subsaharan Africa."

   On an aside, this book bears a strong resemblance to another Amazon listing: "Our Votes, Our Guns: Robert Mugabe and the Tragedy of Zimbabwe" by Martin Meredith. Although I have not read this second book, I believe that they are one and the same book.
   by Martin Meredith




2. I served briefly in Mugabe's Zimbabwe as a transiting diplomat in 1998 after the bombings of our East African embassies. I was astounded how someone could spit in the face of the economic forces that provided him with the lavish lifestyle he so enjoyed. This book does an excellent job of portraying the nascence and subsequent decay of one of the world's most corrupted minds. The breadbasket of Africa was turned into desert by this man. Everyone should read this book.



3. great book. i'm not really a book guy. i had to read an african book for a class so i chose mugabe.
   
   this book easily held my attention. i read every word of it in a few hours. i knew nothing about modern zimbabwe. this book changed that.
   
   if you want to read a book that in 3 hours will make you an expert on a very relevant and important current world issue.. pick up mugabe.



4. 2 stars is not a judgment on the quality of this work. No, the low rating is due to the misleading title of the book. As an earlier reviewer suspected, this book simply is a "revised and updated" version of "Our Votes, Our Guns" -- which I already own! Needless to say, I would not have purchased this book had I known that. Yes there is a small footnote on the BACK OF THE BOOK, but you don't see that until the book arrives.
   
   Furthermore, Meredith doesn't even provide and introduction telling one just what parts he has updated or revised. I'm sure this version contains valuable commentary on events since the earlier book, but there's no easy way to find the new material.
   
   Overall I'm sure the book still is a valuable introduction to the insanity that is the Mugabe regime (that's why I gave it 2 stars rather than 1). If, however, you have read the earlier "Our Votes, Our Guns," save your money and wait for "Dinner with Mugabe" to be released.



5. For anyone interested in beginning to understand the dynamics of Zimbabwe's recent electoral crisis, this book is essential. Meredith goes into Mugabe's long history of violence,who like Mao sees violence as essential for politics. From the war waged against opposing guerilla forces because of political differences, the slaughter of 10,000 in Matabeleland, the seizure of white farms, threatening judges who ruled against the ZANU-PF government, and electoral violence, what we are seeing is nothing new, as Meredith reminds us. He also hints at the ethnic and racial tensions driving the politics and violence, something too often forgotten in today's media coverage. For example, Mugabe's ZANU-PF has its roots in the rural Shona ethnic group, while the Movement for Democratic change is much more urban and has many white supporters.
   
   The book is also relatively short (about 244 pages) and easy to read. Meredith provides a huge amount of detail without wasting too many words (or the reader's time).
   
   I think the book could have used a bit more of an introduction into Zimbabwe's and Africa's history more generally for the uninitiated to allow us to compare Mugabe's rule to how politics was conducted in the past in the country and the wider continent. For example, some readers might not realize the importance tribal and ethnic divides play in many African countries. However, any ignorance in this regard could be fixed by reading Meredith's other books on Africa.
   
   Usually in biographies authors try to psychoanalyze their subject. Fortunately, Meredith does not try to do this. He provides insights using quotes and sources, not psychobabble. This is not only good academic practice, but also creates an alarming effect in the book in which Mugabe himself often seems somewhat distant, except through his public statements. That indeed appears to be how he is in real life, alienated from his nation, isolated from the people, and removed from reality.
   
   I hope he comes out with another revised version when Mugabe finally falls from power.
   
   [note: this book is a revised version of "Our Votes, Our Guns". It says this clearly on the front cover and back, but just to warn future readers...]

5 comments about First Person.

1. The American Presidential system, for all its faults, is relatively open. Because this is not the case in Russia, any information we can get on President Vladimir Putin has to be particularly welcome. First Person, the product of six interviews conducted by Russian journalists with the Russian leader, gives us that information in Putin's own words.
   
   Putin likes beer and dislikes Chechen separatists; he is saddened by Stalin's excesses and proud of his own work in the KGB; he is sorry that the Soviet Union put Hungary and Czechoslovakia to the sword but delighted that today's glorious Russian Army is teaching the Chechens a lesson. Putin, like Mother Russia herself, is a mass of contradictions.
   
   Unlike Boris Yeltsin, Putin is a sober and industrious man. This is no bad thing in a land where vodka abuse has slashed ten years off the life expectancy of the ordinary Russian since the collapse of the evil empire. Although abstemious, Putin frankly admits that he is, at heart, a product of Soviet indoctrination.
   
   This is not that surprising from someone who worked for the KGB for 20 years and ended up taking over Yeltsin's entire secret service network. Russia today is as shadowy and secretive as it was when John Le Carre wrote his novels about Putin's KGB workmates. In those days, the KGB were our definite bad guys. Now however, the Russian Mafia have made the big league, the Caucasus are in flames and the Russian nuclear navy is more a threat to its crewmen than it is to the United States and her allies. Times have changed.
   
   Russia is in obvious need of law and order. Traditionally, law and order was achieved in Russia by generous applications of the heavy hand. Certainly, Lenin, Stalin and Peter the Great, Putin's hero, were never afraid to bite the bullet - or to use it for that matter. Putin can probably be no different. Russia is bankrupt, law and order has broken down, Yugoslavia and her other traditional allies have been brought low, neighboring Poland is on the verge of entering NATO and Islamic unrest is rising on her southern flanks. And Japan wants her Northern islands of Etorofu, Kunashiri, Shikotan, and Habomai back.
   
   What is to be done? One solution would be to sell these islands back to the Japanese for the highest attainable price and to link it to massive Japanese aid for the Russian Far East. This would help to stem the demographic and military threats China poses to Siberia. A similar deal will probably have to be done with the United States. Russia will have to scrap her nuclear arsenal in return for another king's ransom and let NATO do as it pleases in the rest of Europe. Putin will have to surrender land and power projection capabilities for hard cash.
   
   With its flanks in some kind of order, Putin could then concentrate his resources on saving Russia. But there's the rub. Putin and the problems besetting him just do not have modern Western equivalents. The nearest American President to him is Honest Abe Lincoln, who, like Putin, also worked his way up from humble beginnings. Although Lincoln also fought a major war on his Southern flank to preserve his nation's unity, he had the advantage of being able to marshal a vibrant, disciplined and modern economy behind him. Putin has no such luxury. He has his KGB contacts, his dispirited army and, as the sinking of the Kursk showed, the world's media and human rights groups breathing down his neck. Putin must now worry about media ratings as well as Chechen suicide bombers.
   
   Even Putin's moral hold on power is tenuous enough. His Presidential campaign was beset by large-scale fraud. More than 1.3 million new voters appeared between the State Duma elections on 19 December 1999 and the presidential election in March 2000. These were not "dead souls", as described in Gogol's famous novel of that name, but "new-born souls" who were given the vote and who all voted for Putin. More than 50% of Chechens, who survived Putin's bombing campaign, also voted for him. Either that or the vote was rigged!
   
   Electoral fraud is only one of his more minor headaches. Putin must use books like this to don a human face much the same way that Al Gore and George W. Bush have to display their witticisms on the Oprah Winfrey show. American wannabe Presidents can joke and cajole their way through such shows - as can Japanese leaders like the late Mr. Obuchi. They can do this because they are leaders of modern and vibrant economies. This interesting book is the beginning of such a process in Russia. However, it would be best if Putin concentrated on his nation's many economic problems. Oprah Winfrey can wait.



2. I found this book provided a much needed insight into Putin and it assists when trying to cut through the politics of popular culture. With an extremely challenging road ahead for this country it is important not to loose sight of the men who assert power



3. First person is an easy and interesting book to read. The format, question & answer, actually made the book more interesting. We only really learn what Putin wants us to learn about him. However, Putin seems to answer in an honest and straight-forward manner. A must read for anyone interested in world affairs, world leaders, or Russia.



4. Die Frage "Wer ist Mr. Putin?" bewegt seit Boris Jelzins überraschendem Rücktritt am 31.12.1999 die Welt. Die ausführlichen Gesprächsaufzeichnungen von drei russischen Journalisten aus dem Frühjahr 2000 geben nur teilweise eine Antwort auf die Frage. Sie verbergen ebenso viel, wie sie aufdecken.
   Es wird in den Interviews noch einmal eine Besonderheit Putins deutlich, die viele Beobachter schon zuvor bemerkt hatten: die bizarre Zufälligkeit von Putins steiler Karriere und seine politische Unerfahrenheit im Augenblick seiner Amtsübernahme. Dies würde im Russischen durch die Konstruktion "slutschajnyj tschelowek" (zufälliger Mensch) wiedergegeben werden. Normalerweise bedeutet im traditionell hierarchiebetonten und elitistischen russischen politischen Diskurs eine Charakterisierung als "slutschajnyj tschelowek" das Absprechen jeglicher Kompetenz für die Lösung der jeweiligen Aufgaben. Diesen Nachteil schien Putin sowohl mit seiner mythologisierten Vergangenheit als KGB-Mitarbeiter (die hier auch weitgehend im Dunkeln bleibt) als auch mit dem Image eines früheren Vertrauten des verstorbenen ehemaligen Bürgermeisters von Sankt Petersburg Anatolij Sobtschak wettzumachen. Vor allem wird in dem Buch noch einmal deutlich, wie eng die Ernennung Putins zum Premierminister und seine Profilierung in dieser Funktion mit dem Tschetschenienkrieg verbunden war. Und dies, obwohl die Anleitung der in Tschetschenien tätigen "Machtorgane" (silowye organy) an und für sich direkt dem Präsidenten obliegt. De facto schien Putin mehr noch als seine zahlreichen Vorgänger bereits vor Jelzins Rücktritt das Zepter in Rußland in die Hand genommen zu haben.
   Obwohl eine Reihe von Putins Aussagen in den Interviews in bezug auf Demokratie, Rechtsstaat und Marktwirtschaft durchaus ermutigend klingen und er sich im Großteil des Buches als ausgewogener "Mann der Tat" gibt, bleibt ein Eindruck von Unberechenbarkeit. Auf das Thema Tschetschenien angesprochen, wechselt der sonst beherrschte Putin zu apokalyptischen Visionen ("globale Katastrophe", S. 136), radikalem Isolationismus ("Wir brauchen keinerlei [internationale] Vermittler." S. 158) und missionarischem Eifer ("meine historische Mission", S. 133). Er scheint den Leser für dumm verkaufen zu wollen, wenn er sich als selbstloser "Mann fürs Grobe" ausgibt: "Ich ging [im August 1998] davon aus, daß ich [das Auseinanderfallen des Landes] selbst um den Preis meiner politischen Karriere [verhindern] muß." (S. 133)
   Die ganze Passage zum Tschetschenien-Abenteuer wirkt phantastisch: Putin beschwört das Bild eines vom winzigen Tschetschenien tödlich bedrohten Rußland. Die von ihm an anderer Stelle angemahnte "Präsumption der Unschuld" vergißt er, wenn er - ohne das Vorliegen einschlägiger Beweise, zumindest zum Zeitpunkt des Interviews - die Tschetschenen für die Bombenanschläge in Moskau, Bujnaksk und Wolgodonsk verantwortlich macht. Selbst wenn er mit seinen Anschuldigungen Recht behalten sollte, so steht die Zahl der mutmaßlich von islamistischen Terroristen getöteten russischen Zivilisten in keinem Verhältnis zu den tausenden zivilen Opfern der russischen "antiterroristischen Operationen" seit 1994. An anderer Stelle gibt sich Putin, abweichend von seinen früheren Andeutungen, ähnlich uneinsichtig, wenn es um die Rolle der NATO in den Ost-West-Beziehungen oder um den Jugoslawienkonflikt geht. Auch seine merkwürdig distanzierte Beurteilung der Tätigkeit seines früheren Ziehvaters Anatolij Sobtschak wirkt befremdlich.
   Während Putin hoffen kann, mit seinen unsensiblen Statements insbesondere zu Tschetschenien und Jugoslawien beim durch jahrelange Gehirnwäsche emotional aufgepeitschten russischen Durchschnittsbürger auf offene Ohren zu treffen, dürfte er sich mit diesem Buch in bezug auf seine aufgeklärte russische und potentielle westliche Leserschaft keinen Gefallen getan haben.



5. I am very interested in Russian politics and especially in Vladimir Putin. This book caught my eye because it is 28 hours of interviews with him about many different subjects. It was a quick read and my only complaint is that I read it so quickly. One of the more personal books I have read about Putin. I recommend it highly.

5 comments about Present at the Creation: My Years in the State Department.

1. I'm a 16 year old sophmore in high school and have an interest in all history, especially history that took place during the 1930's to around 1965. this book gave very deep and detailed insight into the inerworkings of the stae department after world war 2, and displayed the type of men it took to rebuild governments around the world into well oiled democratic machines. i would HIGHLY reccomend this book to anyone interested in learning a great deal about the state department under truman and acheson, as well as a person just interested in a good read.



2. Dean Acheson, one of "The Wise Men" who crafted foreign policy from Truman to Johnson, was a great American. I assume it could be debated just how correct our Cold War policy was, but we're all still here to debate the point so that in itself says volumes. President Truman was wise indeed for the trust and extreme confidence that he placed in Dean Acheson. Great reading!



3. A generally enjoyable and interesting book. I hold Dean Acheson in very high regard along with Harry Truman and George Marshall. As other reviewers have stated, those three men (and several others) initiated policies that shaped world history for the next 50 years.
   
   That said, the most fascinating aspect of the book for me was the back-stabbing, political posturing, stonewalling, and unresponsiveness that Acheson described throughout all the various government bureaucracies (both foreign and domestic) - Congress, the Defense Department, Foreign Ministries, Treasury, etc. It drives home to the reader just how difficult it is to get ANYTHING done in government! And it also reminds the reader that the political animosity and disfunction we see in modern government isn't a new phenomenon at all...



4. I respect that this book has a Pulitzer for History, and it has a wealth of information for scholars, but for the lay reader, it is too long by 100 pages or so and goes into minute governmental procedures and such, obscuring the good parts of the book. Acheson manages to be hawkish, critical of both parties, but makes a lot of sense too about containment, and realistically looking at the Soviets. I take his comments with a grain of salt, as this is part memoir and apologia. I would have liked to see more of his take on the years after Truman's presidency. And yes, this book did help me appriciate Truman's character more.



5. I rememeber doing a 60-page research paper on Dean Acheson while I was an undergraduate at UCLA; and this book was one of the primary sources of material that I used in my research. The book is a fascinating insight into a man who before, and during the Cold War, was truly 'Present at the Creation.' Dean Acheson was Harry Truman's Secretary of State during one of the most tumultuous periods in American history. As secretary of state, he was one of the primary movers who helped shape and guide the nation's foreign policy for many years to come. Dean Acheson was not only one of the most important men during this postwar period, but as one who helped shape a major part of this country's policies; and he gives a fascinating insight into the policies and decision makers in the government.
   
   In the book, Dean Acheson describes how decisions were made and then eventually implemented. The book, which is Acheson's memoirs of his years in the state department is not dry; but instead a very insightful a engaging read. If you are interested in politics, or history, and wonder how decisions were made that impacted the American foreign policies during the Cold War, then this book is an important read. Moreover, what he discusses in the book has not changed at all in terms of how the government goes about implemeting polices, and those who try and thwart the process: either through political gain or ignorance. Or in some cases a little bit of both.
   
   You might ask yourself, "Why should I care about this man, and his memoirs?" Well the answer would be [from me anyway] that the polices he helped shape are with us today. [Many anyway]. The political structure of the postwar period was primarily designed to contain communism. And as such, the creation of NATO was one of the most important decisions enacted during the cold war era. His insistence [along with Truman] that Western Europe had to be revived and restructered as a thwart to Soviet Russia is an extremely important chapter in our nations history. This book is highly recommended, and belongs in your library.

5 comments about On the Trail of the Assassins.

1. Jim Garrison's book "On The Trail Of The Assassins" was one of two books used as the basis for Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" (the other was Kim Marrs' "Crossfire"). On that basis alone, highly recommended (for it led to the JFK Act and the ARRB). That said, this is a very good but not a great book. I would put James DiEugenio's book ON Garrison ahead of this one. Still, a good "read" with some good moments.
   Vince Palamara



2. The late Jim Garrison's book "On The Trail Of The Assassins" was in large part the basis for Oliver Stone's 1991 motion picture "JFK", which is a film containing so many lies, half-truths, and misrepresentations of the facts surrounding John F. Kennedy's 1963 assassination, it's literally difficult to keep up with all of them.
   
   I cannot watch one single scene of Oliver Stone's film without finding some distortion of the evidence in the real JFK or J.D. Tippit murder cases. Some are small things being distorted; and some are great big ones. One example (among dozens) being: Oliver Stone's version of shoe clerk Johnny Brewer's testimony re. Lee Harvey Oswald's manner of dress when Brewer encountered Oswald shortly after Oswald had shot and killed policeman Tippit.
   
   Stone, in his film, has Oswald (Gary Oldman) wearing a jacket as he enters the Texas Theater and is seen by Brewer....and in one of the movie's "Deleted Scenes" (on the DVD version of the film), Kevin Costner (playing Garrison) even does a voice-over (lie) re. Brewer's testimony, with Costner saying "Brewer said the man was wearing a jacket".
   
   Brewer, in reality, said exactly the opposite during his Warren Commission testimony:
   
   Mr. BELIN -- "Will you describe the man you saw?"
   Mr. BREWER -- "He was a little man, about 5'9", and weighed about 150 pounds is all. ... And had brown hair. He had a brown sports shirt on. His shirt tail was out."
   Mr. BELIN -- "Any jacket?"
   Mr. BREWER -- "No."
   
   Another interesting part of the Tippit portion of the movie "JFK" is Oliver Stone's Audio Commentary during this part of the film, which is riddled with inaccuracies. Stone has the audacity to spout the following lie re. the Tippit shooting on the DVD's Commentary soundtrack:
   
   "Not one credible witness has really identified Oswald as a single shooter {of Officer Tippit}. In fact, the only significant testimony applies two to three shooters." -- O. Stone
   
   Therefore, per Mr. Stone (and Garrison said pretty much the same thing years earlier), the "only credible" witness must have been Acquilla Clemmons, who, as far as I am aware, was THE ONLY witness who ever said there was more than one person involved in the Tippit slaying.
   
   Stone, like Jim Garrison before him, would simply rather believe his OWN version of events, rather than the multiple witnesses who never saw more than one shooter (with that one single shooter being positively identified as Oswald by said witnesses).
   
   It's interesting, indeed, that Stone thinks the "only significant testimony" re. the Tippit crime came from Clemmons. Whereas, people like Markham, Tatum, and Scoggins (who were all closer than Clemmons to the scene of the murder) are deemed less "significant", merely, no doubt, because they don't fit into Stone's (or Garrison's) "CT Landscape" surrounding the murder.
   
   I wonder if people realize just how many outright lies are contained in Oliver Stone's 3-hour, 15-minute motion picture? The number is simply staggering. And that number of distortions is increased considerably on the DVD version of the film, when the Audio Commentary Track by Mr. Stone and all of the "Deleted and Extended Scenes" are included as well.
   
   And a great deal of this deliberate misinformation put forth on the movie screen came directly out of this book authored by Jim Garrison.
   
   Another great place to see more of Mr. Garrison's skewed views of the JFK case is to read Garrison's 1967 "Playboy Magazine" interview. Like Stone's movie, that Playboy article will keep you busy as you try to keep up with the inaccurate things Garrison keeps saying in that lengthy piece. The whole interview can be read here:
   
   www.jfklancer.com/Garrison2.html
   
   
   Selected examples of Mr. Garrison's paranoia and loony-toon conspiracy talk, taken from that Playboy interview, are provided via the quotes below. My own rebuttal arguments follow each quote:
   
   
   "Though he {Oswald} may not have known why he was instructed to do so, this was undoubtedly why he got the job at the Texas School Book Depository Building. The conspirators knew this would place him on the scene and convince the world that a demented Marxist was the real assassin." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
   
   The above Garrison gem totally distorts (or just flat-out ignores) the true and documented facts about how Oswald got his job at the Depository in mid-October of '63. It was suburban Dallas housewives Linnie Mae Randle and Ruth Paine who were directly responsible for placing Lee Harvey Oswald in the TSBD, by way of ordinary garden-variety happenstance.
   
   Garrison must, therefore, believe that Mrs. Paine, who arranged Oswald's job interview with Depository boss Roy Truly, was one of the main "conspirators" who was setting up Oswald to take the fall for JFK's murder the following month (which would also have to mean that Paine had detailed knowledge of the President's motorcade route more than a month before November 22). Garrison must also think that Roy Truly was a big part of the patsy plot, because it was Mr. Truly who actually hired Oswald (even though nobody was holding a shotgun to Truly's head forcing him to hire Lee).
   
   The commonly-held belief that Lee Oswald was "placed" in the Texas School Book Depository by evil plotters prior to 11/22/63 is a desperate attempt by CTers like Mr. Garrison to attach unprovable and unsupportable conspiratorial "strings" to a random event that involved several individuals...individuals whose collective and synchronized actions could not possibly have been foreseen and controlled by a group of behind-the-scenes conspirators.
   
   ---------------
   
   "Anyone who takes the time to read the Warren Report will find that of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza who were able to assess the origin of the shots, almost two-thirds said they came from the grassy-knoll area in front and to the right of the Presidential limousine and not from the Book Depository." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
   
   This is pure nonsense. There were, indeed, several witnesses who said they heard shots coming from in front of JFK's car, but Garrison has severely skewed the stats to support his claim of Knoll shooters. His "almost two-thirds" figure is not even close to being accurate when talking about the number of witnesses who said they heard frontal shots. And even amongst other CTers, virtually no other pro-conspiracy author has ever rigged those stats in such an out-of-whack manner.
   
   The fact is that more than half of all earwitnesses heard shots coming from the direction of the Book Depository, and not from the Knoll. And an even more illuminating statistic reveals that less than 5% of all earwitnesses heard shots from more than just a single general location (front vs. rear). That stat speaks volumes....because even CTers admit to SOME rear shots.
   
   An interesting tabulation of this data can be found below:
   
   http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots4.jpg
   
   http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm
   
   ---------------
   
   "The second shot struck the President in the back; the location of this wound can be verified not by consulting the official autopsy report, but by perusing the reports filed by two FBI agents who were present at the President's autopsy. Both stated unequivocally that the bullet in question entered President Kennedy's back and did not continue through his body." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
   
   Therefore, Mr. Garrison is, in essence, saying that he is much more likely to trust the word of FBI agents (who, of course, were not doctors and were not conducting the President's autopsy) rather than take the word of the three physicians who each signed the official autopsy report. After all, why believe the autopsy doctors when you COULD just trust as Gospel the word of a bystander? ~sarcasm alert~
   
   Plus: Why didn't these two FBI agents get the conspirators' memo which, if CTers are right about the success of the Patsy Plot, must have been passed out to nearly everyone in Officialdom on 11/22, a memo that probably said: "Attn. All Agents -- We're framing Oswald tomorrow; so remember to falsify as much evidence as humanly possible to ensure conviction of patsy".
   
   Evidently some people who needed to see it never received that important document.
   
   ---------------
   
   "We have also located another man who was not involved in the shooting but created a diversionary action in order to distract people's attention from the snipers. This individual screamed, fell to the ground, and simulated an epileptic fit, drawing people away from the vicinity of the knoll just before the President's motorcade reached the ambush point." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
   
   Yet another outright lie from the lips of District Attorney Garrison. The man who had the so-called "simulated epileptic fit" was fully identified by the FBI on May 26, 1964. His name was Jerry Belknap, a man who had a history of epilepsy since childhood. Belknap also proved to the FBI that he had paid the ambulance bill ($12.50) after he was taken to Parkland Hospital.
   
   ---------------
   
   "President Kennedy was killed for one reason: because he was working for a reconciliation with the U.S.S.R. and Castro's Cuba. His assassins were a group of fanatic anti-Communists with a fusion of interests in preventing Kennedy from achieving peaceful relations with the Communist world." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
   
   Any solid, verifiable proof of such accusations, Mr. Garrison? Any physical evidence whatsoever that shows JFK was killed by more than one gun? .... The answers to those two questions are: No and No.
   
   But the lack of physical evidence never stopped a hard-boiled CTer....that's been proven over and over again by a vast assortment of conspiracists who have more theories up their sleeve than a dog has fleas.
   
   ---------------
   
   "In summation, there were at least five or six shots fired at the President from front and rear by at least four gunmen, assisted by several accomplices. At this stage of events, Lee Harvey Oswald was no more than a spectator to the assassination -- perhaps in a very literal sense. James Altgens snapped a picture that shows a man with a remarkable resemblance to Oswald, standing in the doorway of the Depository. The Altgens photograph indicates the very real possibility that at the moment Oswald was supposed to have been shooting Kennedy, he may actually have been standing outside the front door watching the motorcade. .... I don't believe that Oswald shot anybody on November 22nd -- not the President and not Tippit." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
   
   It seems as though these devilishly-clever conspirators forgot one important thing when they were setting up LHO -- they forgot their brains. For, who WITH brains would allow their lone "Patsy" to casually drift outside and be photographed and seen by countless witnesses when the plotters need to have Lee Harvey on the 6th Floor at 12:30? Per Mr. Garrison's account of Oswald possibly being "Doorway Man", evidently the real assassins were indeed brainless and lacked the common sense to keep Oswald where he wouldn't be able to establish a credible alibi for his 12:30 whereabouts.
   
   Just think about these Garrison remarks for a moment longer too -- "At least five or six shots were fired at the President from front and rear ... by at least four gunmen".
   
   Doesn't a "4-Shooter, 6-Shot, 1-Patsy" assassination plot seem a bit unlikely to anyone else but this writer? Would any professional killers actually attempt to "frame" a lone fall guy in that type of overkill fashion? In my opinion, no pro hit men would go about the complicated task of setting up Oswald (or anybody else) in such a needlessly-reckless way.
   
   A single "pro" hit man could have easily killed JFK with one or two shots (probably just one) from Oswald's "nest", without the need to clog the works with needless back-up gunmen hiding all around Dealey Plaza.
   
   There is no possible way the conspirators could have ensured the success of a multi-shooter plot to frame JUST Oswald in the minutes during and after the shooting. No way. There are way too many uncontrollable factors that could block the success of that One-Patsy venture that Jim Garrison placed his faith in.
   
   "Uncontrollable" items such as:
   
   1.) A frontal shooter might very well have been seen by witnesses (and to think that EVERY witness under the sun could be easily "bought", "taken care of", and/or coerced by these plotters is, again, just too much wishful thinking on the conspirators' part, IMO).
   
   2.) A frontal shooter might strike other occupants in the car, or strike somebody else in Dealey Plaza. But even if ONLY Kennedy is hit by a frontal gunman, there are massive problems to be "corrected" by the conspirators....bullets to be hidden and, of course, who knows how many obvious frontal wounds on the victim to be (somehow) eliminated -- and eliminated immediately before any non-conspirators can spill any beans. .... Only a person straight out of the booby hatch could believe that anyone, regardless of "power" or "pull", could get away with such a thing. It's just plain loony.
   
   3.) The one "Patsy" (Oswald) could have easily, by pure accident and happenstance, established a perfect alibi for himself at the time when he was supposed to be on the 6th Floor shooting the President (as Mr. Garrison apparently DID think occurred, with Oswald being seen in a photo taken as the bullets were flying; even though all reasonable researchers know full well that "Doorway Man" was actually Billy Lovelady, and not Oswald; Lovelady even testified to that effect in 1964). ....
   
   Plus -- If Oswald had really been in that doorway at 12:30, WHY ON EARTH DIDN'T HE SAY HE WAS THERE?! If he's got an ironclad alibi like that, why wouldn't he use it? Instead, he says not a word about being outside on the steps at 12:30, and even tells the police a provable lie re. his whereabouts (the lie about "having lunch with Junior {Jarman}" at the time of the shooting). How much sense does that make if Oswald had really been in the Depository doorway? ....
   
   And the very fact that Oswald did NOT have a usable, provable alibi for exactly 12:30 PM is absolutely remarkable IF he had really been wandering around on the lower floors of the Depository (or was outside the building), as many CTers firmly believe; and even the most rabid of conspiracy theorists have got to admit, that from the "CT/Patsy" POV, Oswald's not having a usable/believable/solid alibi is certainly, by far, the biggest piece of LUCK in the whole "Patsy Plot". ....
   
   These amazing Patsy Plotters just lucked out, evidently, in that Oswald was not seen by a single person inside or outside the TSBD at precisely the time of the assassination -- except by Howard Brennan, Ron Fischer, and Robert Edwards, of course, who saw Oswald or a nicely-arranged Oswald "imposter" in the Sniper's Nest at 12:30 or just seconds before 12:30.
   
   4.) And the likelihood that all of the non-TSBD bullets are going to somehow get swept under the rug is extremely remote, especially in a Bob Groden-like scenario. Mr. Groden (per his book "The Killing Of A President"), incredibly, has ZERO of the shots coming from the Oswald window, and a total of up to TEN shots being fired...and ALL OF THEM coming from rifles other than the one rifle these idiot plotters are going to attempt to frame Oswald with! Could Groden's scenario BE any more reckless and preposterous?! I doubt it.
   
   5.) And a biggie, that most CTers evidently don't think could have ever happened before 12:30 on November 22nd -- The one Patsy (Mr. LHO) could "get wise" to the plot that is brewing all around him and take measures to guarantee he could never be blamed for the actual assassination of John Kennedy.
   
   When thinking about any "Frame Lee Oswald As The One Patsy" plan, I just cannot visualize any professional assassins (even for a minute) contemplating the use of multiple shooters; let alone some gunmen firing from the Grassy Knoll, i.e., the exact opposite direction from where their single dupe is supposed to be located.
   
   ---------------------
   
   As the previously-mentioned quotes from the mouth of Mr. Garrison amply demonstate, if anyone has a desire to set out "On The Trail Of A Lunatic Conspiracy Theorist" -- look no further than Earling Carothers (Jim) Garrison.



3. I avoided reading this book when it was first published thinking it was but a mere rehash of Garrison's earlier book "A Heritage of Stone." However, thirty years on, I have pleasantly discovered that I was greatly mistaken. "On the Trail of the Assassins" is not a rehash, but stands quite sufficiently on its own.
   
   More than anything else, it is first a devastating critique of the Warren Commission's Report; perhaps the best there is so far. Second, it is written by a first-class legal mind. And whatever else one might say about Jim Garrison, it is difficult to ignore the fact that he has one of the best legal minds in this nation. Third, it is a summary report of the Garrison investigation, which again, it is difficult to ignore that Garrison, on a shoe string budget, and with a handful of mostly volunteers, did a much better job investigating the JFK assassination than all of the nation's institutional police and intelligence machinery combined. And finally, the book is Garrison's own defense of the case he lost against the only man ever to be charged with JFK's assassination, Clay Shaw.
   
   As a critique, Garrison attacks the slipshod way in which federal and Texas investigations pursued (or failed to pursue) the evidence and suspects -- other than the "carefully prepared patsy" Lee Harvey Oswald. Among these ways is the fact that Oswald was interrogated for more than 30 hours without a transcript; that the three tramps found in the rail car a few feet from the grassy knoll were released without even recording their names; and the general lack of curiosity on the part of the FBI and Dallas police authorities in following leads, protecting evidence, and in interrogating witnesses.
   
   Garrison's legal astuteness is on display in a number of ways in the book: in the way he corralled information from informants; the way he collated and peeled back his evidence to attain maximum courtroom effect; the way he shaped theories based on where the evidence led; and in the way he parried defense moves and the counter-moves against him made generally by the federal authorities, who curiously always viewed him as a threat and hindrance to their limp but "predetermined" investigation.
   
   With only a handful of investigators, researchers and contributors, Garrison fell just short of cracking the crime of the century. One must wonder out loud what would have happened if, instead of trying to derail and undermine his investigation, the government would have supported him?
   
   It seemed clear even to Garrison, that his case against Clay Shaw was a lost cause even before he entered the courtroom. However, if one looks carefully at the theoretical framework Garrison constructed, in which Shaw was just one of a number of important elements, it is clear that Garrison was on the right track; and that Shaw's acquittal was more about the lack of witnesses to confirm Garrison's evidence, than it was about Shaw's guilt or innocence. That is why after forty years, a great deal, if not all of Garrison's theory has been borne out.
   
   .Whether you believe Garrison's theories or not, this book is a report on investigative, legal, and police work of a very high order. Five Stars.



4. Now, maybe some people aren't interested in Mr. Garrison's point of view - but I am. And so are many others who repeatedly give On The Trail Of The Assassins a deservedly high mark. He was there in New Orleans and KNEW PERSONALLY most of the major players. How many investigators can say that? His overall conclusion of conspiracy is the same as many, many other independent researchers and the conclusion of 80 percent of the general public (Bugliosi be damned), only he was way ahead of his time. Had he known nothing of the truth surrounding the assassination, the CIA would never have bothered to smear his character or try ruin his investigation of JFK's murder by stealing his files for the trial of Clay Shaw. And yet it is Garrison who is accused of not playing fair. That's right... black is white, and white is black.
   
   This book is one of my favorites in the assassination canon. It is brilliantly written, soulful, human, and full of observations about gov't and how it sometimes changes without the people being invited to the party. He knew of Oswald (murdered by Ruby), Ferrie ("suicide"), Bannister ("heart attack" in 1964) and Shaw (no autopsy ever done) - and had most of them not died under conspicuously strange circumstances, Garrison would never have been placed in the position of being the Lone-Nut scape goat for their lack of honesty and insight into this murder investigation - an investigation that is still continuing, though with little help from some of the people who should have known better after all these years.
   
   Garrison's investigation and the trial of Clay Shaw were the inevitable result of the corrupt Warren Commission cover-up. Had the Warren Commission done its job and followed up leads in the first place, Garrison would never have ended up in the position of being the whipping boy for the Oswald as Lone-nut contingent. It was only through the efforts of Garrison that the Zapruder film ("back... and to the left") was viewed for the first time and the public began to see how dishonest the Warren Commision and the CIA were in lying to the American people about at least one more shooter.
   
   Recent revelations about secret CIA assassinations plots can no longer be denied and now are out in the open in recent news events. It's your country. You might think of the 40-year tailspin the country has been in since our president was killed and the efforts of private citizens who've tried to expose the CIA skullduggery during the Kennedy years and beyond. Garrison took on these covert agencies in the name of justice, and had not Clay Shaw lied his head off under oath during his trial, it's conceivable that Garrison would have won and Shaw end up on a chain-gang where he belonged. In a conversation with Oliver Stone, Judge Haggarty, who presided over the Shaw trial, said that he himself never believed a word Shaw said. (This is discussed on the JFK special features dvd.)
   
   The people of the country know all too well that Oswald didn't act alone - that is, if he shot anyone at all - and they're not about to let this conspiracy investigation end until the Federal gov't comes clean with what it knows. Every year more is being found out about certain participants, such as H. Howard Hunt's involvement, or David Morales, who was quoted as saying he was involved with the assassination of both JFK and RFK. Such revelations further vindicate Garrision's conclusion that the CIA was involved in the murder of Kennedy. Hunt and Morales (a man Hunt mentions) were both CIA. Gee, there seems to be a pattern here unless one has been playing ostrich with these recent CIA revelations.
   
   In the meantime, those who continue to smear Garrison are only making themselves small in comparison. They're not worthy to shine the shoes of this great man - a hero in every sense of the word in this sordid tale of political corruption, murder and media cover-up. Ten stars for On The Trail Of The Assassins and Jim Garrision. ZERO stars for the now documented CIA interference of Garrison's investigation and the perjury on the witness-stand of Clay Shaw. Even certain pro-conspiracy researchers wrongly denegrate Garrison and they should be ashamed of themselves now that Garrison's conclusions are being vindicated. They haven't half the courage of a Garrison, and no one other than he and Mark Lane have ever had the balls to take any of these arrogant, politically criminal jerks to trial (H. Howard Hunt by Lane) for lying about their complicity in the murder and cover-up of Kennedy's assassination. And I'm not the only citizen who feels this way. For more information on the coup d'etat in Dallas, read District Attorney Garrison's revealing book and witness courage under fire.... Grow up, America.



5. The year was 1969, and New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison was preparing to make history. The often criticized Garrison had arrested local/international businessman Clay Shaw in conspiring to assassinate the President of The United States, John F. Kennedy. Garrison would accuse Shaw of Conspiring primarily with the CIA, to overthrow the Kennedy regime so that the Military/Industrial Complex could invade and overthrow Cuba and start a war in Southeast Asia. A mere three days after President Kennedy had been gunned down, the new President (Lyndon Baines Johnson) signed National Security Action Memo 273, which reversed Kennedy's withdrawl plans from Viet Nam and escalated the conflict, which eventually led to what is now known as the Viet Nam War. This outline is the backdrop for Garrison's book.
   
   As is well-known, "On The Trail Of The Assassins" was one of two books credited in creating the motion picture and Academy Award Nominated Movie: JFK (along with Jim Marr's fine book "Crossfire"; please see my review of that book too!). So if you're looking for an exact duplication of the movie, you'll be pleasantly surprised to find that Garrison goes into much more detail and background then even the three-hour movie-thriller could provide. The one drawback and criticism that I have of the movie, the book, and of Garrison himself, was the lack of detailed information surrounding Jack Ruby's connections and associates who may have assisted the CIA in murdering the President. There are very few investigators these days who would rebuke Garrison on suggesting that the intelligence community within the United States orchestrated and carried out the murder of our 35th President. However, without even mentioning Ruby's role, even if it was only in taking orders from our government, Garrison undermines his own investigation and therefore this otherwise excellent book.
   
   In closing, this is an extremely well written book, with lots of behind-the-scenes info that only a very few were privy to. Garrison is an excellent writer, and more importantly, was most likely correct in almost all aspects of the conspiracy. If this book is not in your own personal library, then most likely you're not fully aware of all the nuances of this case. This book is a must read!

No comments about King Hussein of Jordan: A Political Life.

5 comments about Ho.

1. This book was less about Ho Chi Minh, and more about why the United States should not fight him. This reader was hoping for a more detailed discussion of Ho's life, his philosophy, etc. This book does over some insights into Ho Chi Minh's character and life, but I was left with the feeling that the book was written for other purposes. The book was originally published in 1970, a year after Ho's death so the book also smacks of the eulogy, glorification of the dead variety.



2. Ho Chi Minh was, in many ways, a mysterious figure. This book reveals some of those mysteries. But also, his stalinist tendencies which caused the death of many of his fellow countrymen and women. Although a revolutionary, he was a stalinist in many ways. Halberstam is such a brilliant writer though, its worth a read.



3. Nations at war like to demonize the leader of their enemy as part of propaganda. This is fine as long as the nation's leaders themselves do not believe in their own propaganda, but instead do their homework and get to truly understand their enemy. This crucial step was missing from America's policy makers during the Vietnam War. Every president involved; JFK, LBJ, to Nixon, did not bother to fully understand Ho Chin Minh, the leader of the Vietnamese Communists. This is why books like this one are so important; written by private individuals, they offer unbiased, insightful glimpses at the other's leader.
   
   This book by David Halberstam is one of his less read books, but being so short in length, it is probably the most focused of his books. This book describes the life of Ho, both private and public, his role in the Vietnam War, and his relations with other world leaders and governments, both before, during, and after the Vietnam War. The treatment of his private life is shorted at the expense of covering more of his public life.
   
   The book does a good job of describing his personal traits that made him a leader: patience, self-sacrifice, humility, and foresight. The book also does a good job of contrasting his personality with others he encountered in battle; Western generals, Western soldiers, and Western politicians. The book is also worth reading because it offers a viewpoint of the Vietnam War as seen by Vietnamese, specifically Ho and his leadership.
   
   I highly recommend reading this book; it is short and easy to read. It is also impartial and straight-to-the-point history, as expected from an author like David Halberstam.



4. I wouldn't order the item if I did not want it or think it of merit. I wanted a copy of the book formyself, and one for my nephew in Oregon. Seemingly your Web page would not allow me to enter two different shipping addresses. Is there a trick, when I entered my home address, my nephews would default to that address. When I entered my nephew's address, then my address would be overwritten by his. Is there a remedy for future orders?



5. David Halberstam was a reporter in Vietnam from 1962-1964 and revealed what was happening. He won a Pulitzer Prize in 1964. Halberstam used his knowledge of Asia and his abilities as a political reporter to write this biography of Ho Chi Minh. The 'Bibliography' lists his sources. Bernard Fall seems to be his main source. This book lacks an index, a table of contents, and photographs. This 1971 book is basically a magazine article. There are history books that go into more detail and have the advantage of hindsight. Ho Chi Minh liberated his country from colonial rule, a feat that is unusual in history.
   
   Chapter 1 tells how French colonialism began in 1856. In precolonial Vietnam taxes were low, landholdings were small and dispersed, and there were few rich people. The French brought heavy taxes, loans and usury, an increasing poverty among the peasants with rich owners of lands (p.11). The defeat of the French at Dienbienphu was an example to other colonial peoples (p.15). Ho eschewed a cult of personality in favor of simplicity. Chapter 2 tells of his life in France and his becoming an advocate for Vietnamese freedom (p.31). In France Ho sided with those who took the side of people in colonial countries (Chapter 3). Ho lived a clandestine life while traveling to Russia, Western Europe, and Asia. Ho cleverly eliminated a rival (p.44). The VNQDD started a revolt against French rule but they were suppressed and eliminated (p.48). Industrialization increased the number of laborers and strikes.
   
   Vichy France allowed the Japanese occupation of Vietnam (Chapter 4). The Vietminh were the only group that was against both the French and the Japanese (p.69). They also had their military force (p.70) under the leadership of Giap (p.72). The surrender of Japan allowed the Vietminh to take over Hanoi and Vietnam as the legitimate power. A weak France was preferred to a strong China (p.83). The rest of Chapter 5 discusses and explains the victory against the French. The Vietminh won because they had the support of the Vietnamese people. The costs of the war to the French was too great (p.101). Chapter 6 tells about the American involvement in South Vietnam. The land that had been distributed to the peasants was taken away; this created enmity for the Diem government (p.109). Diem depended on American support; when this was withdrawn Diem was finished. The Vietcong was winning by 1964 (p.113). American escalated the war in 1965. The Tet offensive had both a military and a political aim (p.115). Ho Chi Minh died before Vietnam won its independence.