5 comments about His Excellency: George Washington.

1. The thing that stands out as being most erroneous in this book was the beleif that Mr. Ellis has that Washington was not involved in the practice of slavery in any way on his own volition. According to Mr. Ellis, the slaves on Mount Vernon were his father's, his brother's and his wife's, but not his, and he had no authority to free these slaves, even though he privately opposed slavery. Mr. Ellis supposes that Washington opposed slavery, even though he shows not evidence to support this other than the fact that he did not work his slaves. In his book, Mr. Ellis has submitted that Mount Vernon ceased to be a working plantation not due to Washington's advanced age and possible exhaustion, but due to Washington's opposition of the practice of forced labour.
   
   I also found it very interesting that Mr. Ellis took pains to make Washington at times a deist, agnostic and even an atheist. Once again he submitted no hard evidence for this, but it is inferred from from the fact that Washington was not the most proliferative writer of theology of the Revolutionary era. Since Washington never wrote a major work of religious philosophy on the subject of Christ he must had not believed in Christ seems to be the opinion of the writer. But if Washington did have religious views outside the norm for those days, why didn't any of the numerous rivals that Ellis mentioned bring those beliefs to light? It was well known the Jefferson used the press to attack Washington, and Adams when he viewed them as political rivals and not as friends, but he never mentioned their faith.
   
   I also take issue with the idea that this book depicts Washington as a bloody-minded general in the mode of Grant, and not as a man who learned his limitations as a military leader. Washington seems to have come to the realization that he was no field commander, but was far more effective in the role of the face of the resistance, and Commander-In-Chief. Furthermore, due to the ineffectiveness, and questionable loyalty of his officers, as well as the loss of his men, he felt the need to commit to a very limited number of engagements in the war until the French military arrived, but Ellis feels as though Washington jealously held on to his commission at the expense of his men with the aim of enhancing his own glory. Washington's firm belief that the war would be won by the French military, and the French economy was missed by Mr. Ellis, but most other scholars have accepted this as a fact.
   
   Mr. Ellis seemed to miss the idea that Washington was a product of his time. Generals kept their command until death in those days, there was no transfers, and no reassignments at those times. Southern plantation owners owned slaves in those days, and that was how it was. And lastly, all members of polite society were fundamentalist Christians, even though Mr. Ellis prefer the founder of the United States not be. Maybe I should amend my review to recommend this book to anyone who wants to see Washington as a Liberal Northeastern Politician from the early 21st century , and not as a Christian/planter/general from 18th century.



2. "His Excellency: George Washington" by Joseph Ellis is a brief but illuminating view of founding father and first president, George Washington. It briefly tells about what little is known of his boyhood, and then quickly moves on to his first public adventures in The French and Indian War. Mr. Ellis follows Washington from his first retirement after that war to Mount Vernon, Washington's pride and joy. From there his frustration with British authority (specifically in commerce) is followed to it's conclusion by his part in the American Revolution. Washington then tries to retire again, but is called back into service (very grudgingly) as the new republic's first president.
   
   If there was anyway to categorize this biography, it is as a myth buster. Many of the ideas we have about George Washington are, while not lies or wrong, are not exactly completely accurate. He is also presented as not so much forging the new nation as lending his credibility to the other men who's ideas were more sound (like Alexander Hamilton's bank and treasury policies or George Mason's protests against the English monarch). He is also shown as much less effective in dealing with pet projects like emancipation of slaves and a more respectful treatment of Native Americans. On a personal front Washington is miserly and land hungry, and benefited by very aggressive land schemes and ventures that may seem unscrupulous by today's standards.
   
   But he is also proud and unbending in what he thought was right. When he chose a course he stuck to it usually no matter what the outcome may be (though usually worked in favor of Mr. Washington. He was a devoted husband and father to Martha and her two children. And he treated his slaves better than most; he refused to split up families despite the economic problem this produced.
   
   I have seen many complaints of this book, saying that Ellis is trying to destroy the reputation of this great man. I do not think so. I have not done the research that Mr. Ellis has done, but I trust that the evidence bears him out. The book was entertaining and thought provoking, and I am glad I read it. Most recommended to anyone with an interest in the early American history and it's founding fathers.



3. My only real gripe about this book is that it was too short. Because Ellis has such an ability to produce readable history books, I believe a 700-page book on Washington would have been more valuable and not been too bogged down in detail. In fact, there is so much about the American Revolution that is not discussed in this book. That was a bit disappointing.
   
   On the positive side, it's a very quick read and informative. I learned a great deal about Washington's temperament and his relative sensitivity to criticism, which surprised me. The book was naturally pro-Washington, not that anyone could really justify an anti-Washington stance. Ellis gives Washington perhaps too much credit for liberating his slaves in his will; Washington could have made a greater impact by freeing them while he was alive. Regardless, this is a great book for someone with minimal history background because it's short and easy to follow.



4. I was very disappointed with the disrespect shown toward George Washington. If you remove the negative comments made by Ellis about Washington, the book would be shortened by one half. Throughout the book he makes accusations about Washington's motives. According to Ellis, almost every decision that Washington made was based on some sort of arrogance, pride or self-esteem issue. And all of this coming from a man who lied about his own past and was severely reprimanded by his employer. Washington was beloved in his own time and now. I certainly understand that people have their flaws...and Washington was no exception. In the final analysis, this was a slander of Washington's character - I would definitely not recommend this book.



5. There are many review about this book so I will not go into a lot of detail.
   First I will talk about the narration. One reviewer was very critical. He said the pace was very slow. I liked the pace and the reader has a very clear voice. The other review also mention he could hear the readers stomach or something. There are places like on the third disk where the reader takes long pauses after a paragraph and you can hear distracting noises. I think it is the reader trying to swallow or bring moisture to his mouth. I don't think it is his stomach.
   I do think Ellis had an agenda and stuck to it, sometimes in spite of the facts. Ellis tries hard to bring Washington down from the God like status he believes many hold of Washington.
   Ellis tries claims that Washington was in love with a married woman, Mary Fairfax, just before marrying Martha. He states the evidence for this is just in three letters that aren't very clear. Yet he claims anyone disagreeing with his conclusion most have had their minds alreay made up.
   Ellis criticizes the plans British leaders made in the Braddock incident. He justifies this because they made these plans without knowledge of the Ohio region. Yet when Washington does the samething later on it is evidence of a personality flaw. "Washington felt he was superior to his superiors." Washington had first hand experience, that almost took his life and did take the life of many close to him. I think he should be given a little more credit than Ellis does.
   Overall, however, I think Ellis did a good job. Ellis is human and I disagree with some of his conclusions. Readers need to realize historical writers are not divinely inspired and therefore are not free from error. Ellis did a good job in presenting the details and I just did not always agree with his conclusions.
   Ellis also had an objective. He wanted to demonstrate how Washington became the man that others would choose over what seemed like more qualified men like Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and other to be our first president. He also wants to keep his work at a reasonable lenght.

5 comments about The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War.

1. Lincoln had been my "favorite president" throughout my life based on the history taught in high school and college, but no more.
   
   This book opened my eyes to the other side of this American icon, the side responsible for the centralization of our once democratic government.
   
   Very easy to read - see for yourself.



2. The great counter-balance to the Cult of Lincoln. Throw out all of your orgasmic adoration for old Abe, this work will replace them all.



3. To all those who think that George Bush is a dictator, consider reading a book that details the beginning of the centralization of power in this country.



4. At the height of his influence, many deemed him to be one of the worst tyrants the world had ever seen. He incarcerated 15,000 of his fellow citizens because they disagreed with his war policy. He had his army shut down newspapers and destroy the presses for any papers that wrote against him. He declared martial law and arrested political opponents without a warrant or trial and kept them locked up for years. His Secretary of State bragged that he could have any citizen jailed "at the snap of a finger." He had one Congressman who disagreed with him deported to another country. Then oversaw a war that led to 620,000 deaths...all within his own country. When half of the country sought to escape, they were forced to remain in the Nation.....or be slaughtered in mass for seeking liberty. In essence they were forced to remain citizens at the point of a bayonet. He ordered cities to be burned. Farms to be destroyed. Civilians, including women and children, to be bombed and executed. He was one of the most hated men in history.....and one of the most beloved. His name? Abraham Lincoln.
   If the above paragraph shocked you, then you might consider reading a book entitled The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, By Thomas Dilorenzo.
   While Lincoln is perhaps not as evil as this book presents, one can't escape the reality that Lincoln took some very harsh and unnecessary measures during the Am Civil War. Ironically, the majority of Americans in both the North and South were in favor of a peaceful secession in 1860. The North wanted separated from the South just as bad as the South did from the North. Yet Lincoln would hear nothing of it. Dilorenzo makes a rather compelling case for the economic motivations behind the war, given the fact that the South was paying roughly 80% of the Nation's expenses through tariffs, while the North was reaping the majority of the benefits in terms of bridge and railroad construction.
   Furthermore, in Lincoln's first inaugural address, he stated clearly that he had no interest in freeing the slaves in the South and had no constitutional right to do so. When he reversed course and issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, he confided to his cabinet that it was simply a "war measure" meant to spark a slave insurrection in the South. Though most people don't realize it, the Emancipation Proclamation only granted freedom to slaves in the South. Slaves in the North were not granted freedom because their Masters had been loyal to the Union. William Seward, Lincoln's Secretary of State bemoaned at the time that the act was worthless having "freed slaves that we no longer have jurisdiction over...while keeping in bondage those slaves that we do." Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and even parts of Louisiana were under Federal control by 1863, and were thus allowed to keep their slaves. That seems to be one of those quirks of history that has been forgotten. Or as Dilorenzo contends....glossed over by the victors.
   Dilorenzo, who is an Economics Professor at Loyola College (Maryland), writes in a very readable style as he makes his case that slavery should have been abolished by compensated emancipation as done in Britain, Brazil, and many other countries during the 1800s. The forward to the book was written by Dr. Walter Williams, Economics Professor at George Mason University, and frequent fill in host for Rush Limbaugh (and incidentally, an African-American). Furthermore, he contends that the South should have been allowed to secede peacefully....as our colonial fathers did when faced with an overbearing British taxation system. Had this happened, Dilorenzo contends that the North would have been forced to change their overbearing tax structure, and eventually North and South would have reunited with a much more solid and efficient government. But what in fact did happen was the centralization of federal government power to the extent that the Constitution was repeatedly ignored leading to the Federal albatross that exists today.
   The argument between a massive Federal government vs. individual state sovereignty goes back to our founders. Thomas Jefferson was famous for saying that the government that "governs best is the one that governs least." In other words, the Federal government's job is to protect the citizens and insure they're given the freedom to purse life, liberty, and happiness. Jefferson's primary opponent was Alexander Hamilton, who sought to have a strong Federal government that dictated things to the individual states and the citizens thereof. Jefferson's followers fought against this (rightfully so), given the fact that they had just escaped tyrannical government control from Britain during the American Revolution.
   As the course of our Nation progressed, the Hamiltonians, led by Lincoln, eventually gained control and vastly expanded the Federal government during the Civil War. By 1865 and the end of the Civil War, states right's had virtually ceased to exist, and the Federal government, which was CREATED BY the states, had become the ruling King of American government. Ironically, the states had created a monster and now that monster would rule over them for the next 143 years (and counting).
   The great irony in all of this is that the two predominant political parties have swapped sides in the area of government control. Today, it is the Democrat party that seeks higher taxes and more Federal control over the lives of its citizens. While the Republicans seek a smaller government with more individual liberty.
   In conclusion, I would heartily recommend the reading of this book. Its insights into our Nation's history are illuminating to say the least. You may not agree with every position taken, but the book does promise to make you think long and hard about governmental and constitutional issues. And it gives a pretty clear road map for the bureaucratic mess that we find our federal government mired in today. History kind of has a way, sometimes, of making people seem better (or worse) than they really were. I suspect this is true of Lincoln as well. While he had some admirable qualities, he was certainly not above political posturing or deceit, as is documented in this work. So check out a copy of The Real Lincoln...and prepare to be challenged.



5. For my entire life I was a hard-core Republican. I loved Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. I read DiLorenzos terrific book How Capitalism Saved America but I still remained a neo-conservative. I hesitated to get this book, but boy am I glad I did. Since then I realized that I have been lied to my entire life. I started reading DiLorenzos and Thomas Woods archives at LewRockwell (dot) com and became a Libertarian. I have bought this book for all of my friends and relatives. I converted my Republican brother and friend who are Civil War re-enactors. As my friend said, "I have only read two chapters and am convinced!"
   
   By the way, one historian reviewed the book and said that a quote is out of context in the book where Lincoln supposedly said blacks can't be equal, only Siamese twins can ever be equal. DiLorenzo has said that he went back and found that the quote is out of context because he got it from a secondary source, and the secondary source got it wrong, so he will remove the quote if there is a future edition of the book. That should tell you that DiLorenzo is honest, and that all of his other quotes are in context.

5 comments about White House Ghosts: Presidents and Their Speechwriters.

1. It seemed to me to lend itself best to "dipping into," read a little ahead there, double back here, and check the index to see when an interesting character enters.
   
   But I would recommend it. Especially since the craft and art of speechwriting (and making) is such a crucial part of the modern American presidency.
   
   Two of my favorites, even though they were given by presidents whom I would not have supported (had I been old enough, or in one case alive) were Nixon's first inaugural and Reagan's "Tear down this wall."
   
   Here, you'll find out who wrote these and other of the best-remembered speeches in history.



2. 'White House Ghosts' seeks to answer the questions of who wrote the best Presidential speeches and lines, which President gave the speech, and who came up with the ideas at the core of those speeches. Often times, other than who said it, those questions are not easily answered but Schlesinger still weaves a great historical accounting of presidential history, communications, and policy development since FDR. At its best, Schlesinger makes clear that speechwriting is a collaborative effort that brings together a President's vision with the wordsmithing of a talented writer with the time to spend on a speech. At its worse, speechwriting appears to drive policy development and changes because a good line was created, so the policy must follow through. Perhaps even worse is when a line has no relation to policy at all (see President George W. Bush's second inaugural). Schlesinger's exhaustive research brings you into each presidency, shows you how the President interacted with the speechwriters and how some of the most famous, and important, words of the 20th and early 21st century came about. A must for any student or fan of presidential history.



3. as a speechwriter, this book was manna from heaven for me. there are few books around that look at modern presidential speechwriting in depth. it also has a broader appeal as a presidential history that gets you right inside the inner circle of modern presidents. the book is well written, excruciatingly researched and filled with funny, inspiring and humanizing anecdotes.



4. It was quick, easy, amusing read; lots of historical anecdotes from each White House since FDR....but apart from that, I can't say I know much more about what makes for a good speech, a good speechwriter, or a good Presidential speaker now than I did before I read the book.
   Apart from figuring out that speeches written by committee don't make for memorable prose, the anecdotes don't really add up to much--- not much insight as to what FDR, JFK, and RR shared in common, if anything, that made them great in this department, versus what Carter and the 2 Bushes shared, if anything, that made them so mediocre....
   Look for a fun read, but don't look for any analysis or depth of understanding...



5. Schlesinger reviews each of the Presidential speech writers, from FDR through W. I found the book became increasingly engaging as he approached the modern presidential speech writers though that may be because they were the Presidents that I grew up with. The chapters on Reagan, Clinton and W are particularly interesting in that they provide a glimpse behind the idiosyncratic personalities that shaped much of our modern policy.
   
   Of the Bush team, he writes, "The troika [Skully, Gerson, McConnell] gathered to prepare the State of the Union. For eight, nine, ten days running, the routine would be the same: The three sequestered themselves in McConnell's office and word-by-word, line-by-line, wrote the speech. After several days, McConnell's office resembled, as he put it, 'the back of a cheap restaurant' - coffee stained papers piled up, books of food, half-full coffee cups and water bottles lying around. McConnell, who kept a supply of Wet Ones towelettes on hand, endured the chaos with good humor". (p. 476)

5 comments about Theodore Rex (Modern Library Paperbacks).

1. Theodore Roosevelt was such an engaging personality that it would've been very hard to make this book anything less than terrific, and the well-written prose takes things to a very high level. The pages rolled by quickly, and I regularly found myself thinking "How in the world did this man accomplish so much with his life and his Presidency?" From the early battles with Mark Hanna to the final return of the Great White Fleet, Morris follows the endlessly energetic Roosevelt through the highs and lows of his (almost) two terms. His careful attention to details of Roosevelt's private life adds even more color to the man.



2. It is difficult not to come away from "Theodore Rex" impressed. Indeed, after I read just the first few pages, I was completely hooked. In "Theodore Rex," Edmund Morris hasn't just written a great book about TR's presidential years, he's drawn in vivid, rich, delightful detail a great story about America's most unique modern President. While I won't say this book is as good or substantive as say David McCullough's "Truman" (and in a sense, it doesn't need to be since "Truman" rehabilitated President Truman's place in history whereas TR's strong place among our greatest executives has been well-established for some time), I can't imagine anyone writing a more engaging, fascinating book about TR's years in the White House.
   
   I strongly disagree with the reviewers who have argued that "Theodore Rex" does not give the reader a great sense or understanding of TR himself. In his stories and descriptions of TR in his relations with family, allies, cabinet members, Congress, the press, and his enemies, Morris has drawn a strong as well as complex portrait of the 26th President. He was all at once a brilliant man and surprisingly well-read in a multitude of different fields of literature, a skilled outdoorsman who loved not only to hunt big game -- a lasting image even today -- but to just spend weeks on end outdoors watching, documenting, and enjoying nature, a loving family man who doted on his six children and wife, a shewd politician for his day who was keenly aware of political strategy and worked hard to bolster his party's strength in Congress and across America, and perhaps most of all a plain and powerful force of nature (using the description of Henry Adams) who in many ways defied explanation or analysis from many learned observers of his day who had simply never seen or encountered any one quite like Theodore Roosevelt. In sum, therefore, Morris does a great job in "Theodore Rex" not just of telling a great story, but also in crafting a superb, rich picture of the first President Roosevelt.
   
   After reading the book, I was struck by the belief that TR really was the perfect leader for America as it was becoming a world super power at the dawn of the 20th Century. Despite being perceived as an accidental President and a ruffian cowboy, TR's boundless reserve of energy turned out to the perfect tonic to lead the U.S. In turn, he was received with open arms by Americans, and could have easily been elected to another term in 1908 had he decided to run again. Furthermore, "Theodore Rex" only reinforced my belief that TR could have been a great leader of America today. His energy, optimism, strength in the face of enemies both foreign and domestic, uncorruptability (if such a word exists!), and deep compassion for others were timeless qualities.
   
   "Theodore Rex" is a top-notch political biography, certainly up there with some of my favorites including "Huey Long" by T. Harry Williams, the LBJ series by Robert Caro, and "Truman" by McCullough. Incidentally, while the book is not particularly heavy on academic analysis of TR's policies, particular attention is paid to numerous key events including TR's negotiation of peace in the Russo-Japanese War, his formulation of the Northern Securities case and greater government regulation of big businesses, his strong determination towards national conservation, and even TR's cautious (and albeit limited) steps to embrace Booker T. Washington and greater rights and protections for blacks at the turn of the century.
   
   Let me close out this way. I like to consider myself a fairly good writer, but reading work like this shows me I'm pretty much nothing. If I could write like anyone, I would like to possess Edmund Morris' unparalleled ability to tell a story. "Theodore Rex" flows perfectly and the prose runs like butter. Reading his work in "Theodore Rex" is a pleasure.



3. I started this book right after reading "The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt" by Morris. While I was riveted to the first book, this one took a little while longer to read. So much detail was given to the politics of his office and the bills that were introduced, that it made for somewhat dry reading in parts. Very informative, but not as thrilling as his life prior to his presidency.



4. This is the second in a projected three volume biography of Theodore Roosevelt, and is just a delight to read. I felt while reading the book that I was inhabiting the White House in the first years of the 20th century.
   
   I agree with several reviewers here who said that the first volume, The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt (Modern Library Paperbacks)was superior, but again, that was terrific, and it is not always easy to follow great success. (Ask William Taft, TR's successor)
   
   And sometimes the journey beats the destination. In the first book Roosevelt leads several different lives, and fulfills different roles as son, author, state legislator, husband, father, widower, hunter, NYC Police Commissoner, NY Governor, and then Vice President. It was hard not to feel cooped up in the White House after the rich, varied life he had led before. It is no wonder he didn't pursue a third term in 1908, despite every indication he would have won.
   
   This second volume does not address TR's private life as thoroughly as did the first. Morris may have felt he had already covered it in the first book, or more likely, that doing them justice would have required another book. TR's second wife, Edith, was his first love. They were school age sweethearts, broke up, after which TR abruptly married a younger woman, who bore him a daughter before dying in a flu epidemic. TR subsequently married Edith. Methinks there is a story there, but it is not dealt with in this book.
   
   Instead Morris focuses almost entirely on TR's public life and policies, which is certainly an understandable decision. The battles with the corporations on creating anti-trust legislation, mediating to bring a cease-fire in the Russo Japanese War and setting aside thousands of acres for national parks are all dealt with in detail here.
   
   The great thing about TR was that in addition to his raw energy, he was also a first rate intellect. He is a biographer's dream and Morris has done a terrific job with these two volumes. While he clearly admires his subject, he also shows him warts and all, when his use of the bully pulpit sometimes turned into bullying behavior.
   
   I highly recommend both this book and its predecessor.



5. I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed this book. I found it difficult to put down and on the rare occasions I did, I could not wait to pick it up again. Morris managed to bring back to life a pivotal period in the history of the United States through the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. While reading, I always felt as though I was standing by T.R.'s side simply watching the events unfold. Morris' storytelling style made for easy reading.
   
   I felt the highlights were in his handling of the Anthracite Coal Strike, the Northern Securities scandal, and the origins of the "Teddy" Bear, among others. However, the opening sequence detailing his journey to Buffalo, NY following the assassination of McKinley provides a fantastic jumping off point for the fast-paced presidency he was about to take on.
   
   Reading a book like this really makes a person long for the honest, hard-working political figures of the past. It makes modern-day politics look even more corrupt by comparison.
   
   Bottom line: do yourself a favor and read this book.

3 comments about Dinner with Mugabe: The Untold Story of a Freedom Fighter who Became a Tyrant.

1. "Dinner with Mugabe: The untold story of a freedom fighter who became a tyrant", is a wonderful read that describes acurately why Mugabe is so angry and pushed into his current situation. My complaint is the subtitle of the book that Amazon advertises, " the man behind the monster". The real subtitle is on the front of the book. This other thing is a heading for an inside flap note. The average American has no idea about how England and the United States have colluded to destabalize The Zimbabwe nation state primarily because of Land Reform differences. Heidi Holland is trying to teach us how Mugabe got to this point in time, and Amazon's mangling of the subtitle of her book does not help people approach this book in a positive way. Please use the real subtitle which is plainly written on the front of the dust jacket.
   Marion W. Sykes



2. Although Heidi Holland met Mugabe only a couple of times, she still provides some good interviews and insights into Mugabe. He has unfortunately proved to be one of the worst leaders of the past couple of decades. Look at the results of his presidency--100,000% inflation, massive food shortages and an 80% unemployment rate. Zimbabwe is an embarrassment to Africa and it didn't have to be that way. Here's a detailed critique of what went wrong, where it went wrong and who is responsible. Mugabe is an intriguing figure because he began his career largely heralded by everyone as a freedom fighter like Nelson Mandela. To see how tragically it turned out, leaves many questions; it's a void Holland is clearly trying to fill.
   
   Holland writes well--the words are fluid and vivid and so it's easy to see how her years of reporting for the BBC, the Guardian and many other reputable news organizations has helped. The book is broken into 15 chapters with an index and bibliography for further reading. I do have one complaint, that I wish this were written by someone who had spent more time with Mugabe instead of relying mostly on interviews and a couple of brief encounters with him.
   
   However, I am glad this book was written and even more glad that it was published in America! I heard Heidi interviewed on the BBC and was dismayed that the book was available for sale only in South Africa. (Note: The book was rushed into production here so the British grammar remains. IE: magnetised instead of magnetized.) Yes, we are interested in the subject here too and are horrified by the still unfolding tragedy of Zimbabwe. If only there was something more we could do to help, but what?



3. This is a very interesting book and a poignant reminder of how Zimbabwe could have been a success story. The author is familiar with the history through her life as a radical and supporter of black rule in Rhodesia when she, and her husband a surgeon, lived in Ian Smith's outlaw colony. She interviews people who knew Mugabe well and then corrects their misrepresentations from her own knowledge. This is a very valuable technique and, with a man as private as Mugabe has always been, is as close as we will get to the inside story.
   
   Robert Mugabe was a studious child, educated by Jesuits and abandoned by his father at an early age. His mother, something of a mystic, was always convinced that he had a special destiny. The author describes Mugabe's mother, Bona, as "a cold, stern nun of a mother."(page 7) He has been emotionally crippled all his life although, with his first wife Sally, a flamboyant and colorful Ghanaian teacher, he had a loving and loyal marriage. She is described by some of the interviewees as warm but by others as imperious and corrupt.
   
   There is a very interesting interview with Mary Churchill Soames, Winston Churchill's younger daughter and wife of the last colonial governor of Rhodesia. Lord Soames became very close to Mugabe who, in a moment of truth just before the election of 1980, which put him in power, asked Soames to stay on for a lengthy transition period to help rule the country. "And Mugabe then said, 'I want you to stay because I need to be able to talk to somebody. I don't know anything about governing a country and none of my people do either.'" Soames told him that it would be impossible and Mugabe was on his own. When Lord Soames died, Mugabe and his wife arrived at Lady Soames' home uninvited to attend his funeral. This was an example of the rare personal empathy that Mugabe could establish with certain people.
   
   There is also a chapter on Denis Norman, a wealthy white farmer who had no interest in politics but who was prevailed upon by Mugabe to take several ministries to solve problems created by incompetent members of his cabinet. Here was another white man trusted by Mugabe, who insisted on European dress by all his ministers and who emulated English manners and education. In fact, the author comments that his education policies (similar to those in India, in my opinion) left the country with too many white collar workers clamoring for government jobs and not enough auto mechanics and other technical trades.
   
   Unfortunately, in another of the disastrous mistakes made by almost everyone in Zimbabwe, the white voters supported former dictator Ian Smith's party in the legislature, enraging Mugabe who had actually treated them quite fairly, even allowing Smith, who had imprisoned him, to live freely in the country and to seek office and serve in parliament. This was a serious mistake, compounded by Mugabe who then dismissed Denis Norman from his post as Agriculture Minister. He told Norman that the whites had chosen to treat him as a black and he would reciprocate, although he later called on Norman again and again to solve problems.
   
   The story continues to 2000, when Mugabe was losing his power to a new generation and was besieged by "war veterans" while he watched white farmers donate checks to his political opponent on television. The result was the disastrous occupation of the commercial farms and the descent of Zimbabwe to ruin. It seems to me, after reading this book, that Mugabe is no more in control of his country than is Assad of Syria. Both are basically run by warlords and secret police.
   
   The book is excellent and the lesson to me is that there were many opportunities for a happy, or at least happier, ending. Mugabe is an educated man, if emotionally stunted, and he did reach out to some of his white opponents for help early on. Some helped him and became friends. Many of the white residents foolishly voted for his enemies and fed his paranoia. I don't know what the chances for success in Zimbabwe were originally, but it seems that everything that could go wrong, did so. This is a very well written account of what happened. He is a monster now, but he wasn't always.

5 comments about The Leaders We Deserved (and a Few We Didn't): Rethinking the Presidential Rating Game.

1. Dr. Felzenberg creates a new and useful methodology for rating U.S. Presidents. Instead of one single grade as in previous surveys, he rates presidents on six criteria. The first three are internal characteristics that each president carries into the Oval Office: character, competence, and vision. The second three reflect presidential accomplishments: economics, protection of liberty and human rights, and defense and international affairs.
   
   Felzenberg uses his methodology masterfully to provide his readers with concise, intriguing, and often amusing portraits of all Presidents (except William H. Harrison, James A. Garfield, and George W. Bush). Felzenberg weaves recent economic and historical research into his vignettes to provide readers with new and sometimes surprising insights into many Presidents.
   
   For example, Felzenberg demonstrates that Ulysses S. Grant deserves a far higher rating, especially for his protection of the rights of the freedmen, than most historians have granted him. At the same time, Felzenberg convincingly proves that although Andrew Jackson was an extremely competent in achieving his policy objectives, his economic policies and his disregard for human rights were very damaging to the United States.
   
   Felzenberg brilliantly peers into the complex personalities of Lincoln, Wilson, both Roosevelts, Nixon, and Reagan. Unlike many other historians, Felzenberg's analyses of the economic policies and results of the Presidents are well grounded in sound economic reasoning and indisputable facts.
   
   This is a hard book to put down. Every reader will learn a great deal about the men who have served in the White House. Some readers may disagree with some of Felzenberg's grades for certain Presidents in one of the six criteria or another. However, all of Felzenberg's judgments are objective and based on thorough research. In summary, this thought-provoking book is a must buy and read.



2. Comparing presidents from over two centuries may seem to require a ton of homework at best, if it's not an impossible task altogether. But this book succeeds because:
   1) The US Constitution hasn't changed much, nor the American's desire for liberty and the pursuit of happiness;
   2) Felzenberg has done his homework, is insightful and is a master of concision;
   3) As primary reasons for success/failure of aspects of a presidency become apparent, the book's conclusion provides a natural, clear and coherent how-to-look-for-a-good-president guide. And heaven knows, all this matters.
   Like all the best history, this excellent book leaves me wanting to read more.



3. The idea behind Felzenberg's book is indeed a new approach, and one that works well. But he limits himself to only a few presidents for each of his 6 categories of measuring a president. Now surely some presidents are more important than others, and if he covered every president 6 times we would have a 1000 page book. But sometimes this approach leaves some questions open--for example, he gives Ulysses S. Grant a 5 on "Vision" then doesn't talk about Grant's vision at all. Another (minor) criticism I would have is the "Preserving and Extending Liberty" section almost exclusively deals with race, which while obviously a key factor is too narrow a definition.
   
   Overall if you are a presidents buff and have always been interested in the ratings game as he calls it, I recommend the book. I'll make a final note: if you want to read about Lincoln and Reagan, he definitely focuses on those 2 guys more than the other 40.



4. The reason for one star is that it gives you the impression this is a fresh, unbiased look at the Presidency. It isn't. You KNOW it's bad when he gives Reagan higher marks for economics and human rights than Clinton. I can think of a host of reasons why Reagan doesn't deserve the scores the author smugly gives him. If you're a conservative or a big Reagan fan, this book just validates your own opinions, so you won't really see anything new. If you're looking for a more objective, balanced evaluation of past Presidents, this book is definitely NOT it.



5. This is an interesting book for those of us who enjoy the parlor game of rating presidents. But I found a real disconnect in the discussion of Nixons' shortcomings and accomplishments relative to his rating. While the author credits Nixon with the peaceful desegregation of schools, environmental laws, China, detente, going off the gold standard, enlightened Native American policies, attempts at welfare reform and national health coverage and other accomplishments, he ends up barely ahead of Pierce and Buchanan and below everyone else. It seems that other Presidents are praised despite their White House horrors--JFK and the Mafia, Wilson and his racism, etc, but Nixon is damned despite his accomplishments. Yes, give him a low grade for "character", but give him his due when he deserves it--or at least treat the others with the same benchmarks.

5 comments about Assassination Vacation.

1. What a great and interesting read. This book reads like the best sort of history book, or the best sort of travel log. There is no such thing as a dry statement of facts in Vowell's world, and her particularly droll delivery leaves waffly, wishy-washy, romantic travel tales in the dust. It's particularly amazing how she can weave in the fine details of the assassins, presidents, and ephemera and make them not only interesting but pertinent. I've never read Vowell's work before but will read more now.



2. Sarah Vowell's very chatty and informal overview of the first three successful presidential assassinations manages to chart, in its off-kilter way, a compelling if highly selective version of American history from the Civil War to the Spanish-American War through a series of anecdotes concerning the assassinations, the presidents who were the victims, the assassins themselves, and most of all the U.S. historical events associated with these events which Vowell manages to visit with the help of her friends and family, and where she meets a charming assortment of local volunteers who become the unofficial heroes of her narrative. Even if you're well versed in Stephen Sondheim's ASSASSINS, which explores much of the same territory in a completely different manner (and which Vowell enthuses over at the very beginning of her narrative), there's still much to find new and interesting here, and Vowell's candidness about her political affiliations and enthusiasms are very refreshing.
   
   Vowell does identify herself on the bookjacket as "a McSweeney's person," and for better or worse that is a fairly accurate self-assessment. On the plus side, the book is charming, hip, ironic, and clever. On the other, it can be a bit self-consciously twee (favoring anachronistic terms in her writing like "looky-loos" and "mosey"), it's in strong need of an editor, and Vowell seems to need to tell us constantly how many supportive and brilliant friends and relations she has. It's almost impossible to nitpick, though, about someone who can be fervent and honest about her nerdy love for American history. This is a fun book to read.



3. This book makes me want to throw my kids in the car and drive them as quickly as possible to the nearest historical memorial/museum/old graveyard/bronze plaque and giggle, tell stories, do ANYTHING other than fret over their brains turning to mush on a Webkinz/Sims diet. Assassination Vacation is not just history for a witty leftie reader. Can you imagine how someone in the future will write the history of OUR time? Do you want just the mentioning of a war in Iraq and details about the number of people who died, or do you want someone to read the part about missing weapons of mass destruction? If you're the kind of person who thinks details like missing WMD's makes the story of our time come alive, you'll really 'get' Assassination Vacation. And you might also learn to love James Garfield and his special, comfy reading chair, which is worth the price of purchase by itself. Great writing.



4. I really enjoyed the first half of this book. It focused on Abraham Lincoln and took the author to some interesting places. I found it educational and entertaining, even though it isn't something that I would normally read about.
   
   I am not that into recent American history, and that may be why I didn't enjoy the second half of the book as much. Presidents Garfield and McKinley aren't that interesting to me. I didn't think that it was any fault of the author, for she seems to really get into geeking out at historical sites, and likes things that make my eyes melt from the boredom.
   
   I think the book is worth reading, just for the first half, and if you are interested in the other two men, you will enjoy it even more.



5. America needs more Sarah Vowell. Perhaps more importantly, I need more Sarah Vowell. I know this review won't exactly make me one of Amazon's Top Reviewers. Nevertheless, I'm just saying. Sarah Vowell, here's five stars -- for you.

5 comments about Four Days in November: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

1. Vince Bugliosi's masterful work is a devastating knock-out blow to those who, like me, once believed there was a conspiracy in the death of JFK. Bugliosi finishes and completes, in exhaustive and impressive detail, the work of the Warren Commission, the House Select Committee on Assassinations, and, quite frankly, all the other writers who have ever delved into the crime of the twentieth century. It is time to get a life, America: Oswald did indeed kill Kennedy, acting alone. Vince Bugliosi has done what I once thought was the impossible: he has convinced me of this notion. The conspiracy community was able to survive the Warren Commission Report, as well as the Report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. The question is whether it will be able to survive Bugliosi's seminal work on this subject.
   Vince Bugliosi letter to Vince Palamara dated 7/14/07:"I want you to know that I am very impressed with your research abilities and the enormous amount of work you put into your investigation of the Secret Service regarding the assassination. You are, unquestionably, the main authority on the Secret Service with regard to the assassination. I agree with you that they did not do a good job protecting the president (e.g. see p. 1443 of my book)..."



2. I really wasn't interested in reading anymore about the Kennedy assassination by the time RECLAIMING HISTORY was released...but then I found out Vincent Bugliosi wrote it. And he spent 20 years writing it. After reading HELTER SKELTER and then his take on the O.J. Simpson trial in OUTRAGE (both incredible reads, btw), I was suddenly very interested in whatever he had to say.
   
   By the time I'd finished reading the first section of RECLAIMING HISTORY (which is what has been released as FOUR DAYS IN NOVEMBER), I realized that Lee Harvey Oswald did it. And he did it alone.
   
   After spending my entire life believing that some dark and sinister conspiracy was at work that day in Dallas, I was ready to let all of that crazy paranoia go. I had a suspicion that Oswald did the shooting since I work with rifles for my job. I had to qualify at targets at 100 yards with a iron sight for years. While watching a show about the assassination, I found out the distance from the book depository window to the limo was about 88 yards. "That's it?" I thought. And Oswald had a scope. Almost all of the shows on the History Channel and Discovery have also found dismissed a lot of conspiracy details as well.
   
   But reading Bugliosi has convinced me. While the conspiracy nutjobs (and their devotion to their delusions is crazy) continue their death grip on shadows and theories and unproven, undocumented fantasies, Bugliosi deals in facts and records.
   
   And so much of FOUR DAYS IN NOVEMBER was news to me. I'm sure it will be with you as well. Open your mind and take a look. Honestly, it won't hurt.



3. When Vincent Bugliosi wrote Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, published in May, 2007, the predecessor of the book being reviewed here, it was widely regarded as his magnum opus, a towering masterpiece which took twenty years and 1648 pages to write. In this new edition about the assassination, drawn from Reclaiming History, Bugliosi has now winnowed the original manuscript to approximately 500 pages, concentrating on the facts of the assassination and eliminating nearly all the material used by the conspiracy theorists because he has essentially disproved the conspiracy idea.
   
   Four Days in November reconstructs the assassination, giving dates and times, sometimes second by second, to make these real events come to life, and he includes seventy-nine photographs and drawings. The resulting achievement is stunning, an intensely readable and compelling work of scholarship which should eliminate, once and for all, the idea that there was more than one gunman. Photographs of the shooting, broken down into tiny fractions of a second, anatomical drawings of the wounds of President Kennedy and Governor Connolly, fingerprint evidence in the "sniper's nest" at the Book Depository, extensive photographs of the grassy knoll at the time of the shooting, and accounts from many eye-witnesses provide weighty, seemingly incontrovertible, evidence that Oswald was the lone shooter.
   
   Bugliosi, who prosecuted Charles Manson in the Tate-LaBianca trial and then went on to write Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders about that trial, is an accomplished writer who shares with the reader the kinds of details that he, as a prosecutor, counts as compelling evidence. At the same time, he is a painstaking recreator of scenes and observer of human nature. His intuitive sense of how people behave gives him an understanding of their psychology and, at times, motivations, all of which humanize this account of seemingly inhuman actions. Focusing on Lee Harvey Oswald and his dysfunctional family, the Dallas police and press, Jack Ruby and the underworld which he represents in Dallas, and the Kennedy family as it comes to grips not only with the loss of the President but with the loss of a loved one, Bugliosi provides an intimate and unforgettable look at a national tragedy which, in his hands, is also transformed into a moving series of personal tragedies.
   
   Readers who begin this book will be as compelled to keep reading, as details unfold, as were all of us who lived through these events during that terrible long weekend in November, 1963, when we remained glued to our TV sets around the clock, and the entire country shut down. Bugliosi's total dedication to providing every relevant detail, his ability to convey the atmosphere and the understandable confusion following the shooting, his sensitivity to the feelings of the innocent people and families who were permanently scarred by these events, and his honesty in recreating events without trying to make the facts "fit" an agenda, make this book a milestone of historical research. Certain to be honored with awards in the coming months, Four Days in November endows terrible events with the respect--and finality--they deserve. n Mary Whipple
   
   Oswald's Tale: An American Mystery
   The Death of a President November 20-November 25 1963
   The Warren Commission Report: Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy



4. This is a brilliantly written and highly readable book. The events of the four days are documented virtually minute-by-minute in an excellent narrative. This work flows so well it I would like to suggest it reads like a thriller - but only in the most complimentary sense. That comment is not intended to demean a work of research and clarity that is worthy of very wide readership.



5. Given that this book is essentially covered by the reviews of its primary source "Reclaiming History" from which it is extracted, I can only reiterate the majority view here that this book is well worth reading - especially if you have not the time for the 1700 pages plus of the aforementioned RH. That said Four Days in November is still in itself a comprehensive study of the events of the weekend of November 1963 and stands alone as fine and thoroughly researched counter view to the hundreds of pro conspiracy books written on this subject.
   
   What struck me most about this book are the many (some 25 or so) reviews of Reclaiming History in the opening pages. Why is this relevant and important you may ask ? It is probably fair to say that a good many of the reviewers represent established and scholarly if not at least dependable organizations - and that these reviewers were open minded or perhaps even reflected the majority of the American public on this subject - that Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy.
   
   But what do they now say....well words to the effect that Reclaiming History (and therefore Four Days in November) establishes beyond a reasonable doubt and in truth beyond a doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone - that the majority have been duped by pro conspiracy wishful thinking for some 40 plus years. To convince so overwhelmingly is a genuine achievement and one must reflect that if so many people - who's job it is to evaluate subject matter such as this - are convinced by Bugliosi after all this time, then he must be worth reading.
   
   So after all this time Oswald "did it after all". Is that true one may well ask ? There is no reason for the many dozens of reviewers to praise the book and still not disagree with its conclusion, but the fact is they do agree with the conclusion. Why ? Because one, they have actually read the book and two they have thought about what they have read. The fact is, if you do actually read the book you will almost certainly agree with its conclusions. Even the chances that a small conspiracy with the tiniest "c" occurred, is dismissed with ease leaving the thoughtful reader in no doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald alone killed John F. Kennedy.

5 comments about Franklin and Lucy: President Roosevelt, Mrs. Rutherfurd, and the Other Remarkable Women in His Life.

1. "Franklin & Lucy" is a terrific read. I finished the book on the beach and thoroughly enjoyed the way the author touched on the history surrounding the romance, but kept his focus on FDR's private passions. "Franklin & Lucy" made FDR a real man, rather than the icon or "sun-god" that saved America during the Great Depression. The author's treatment of Eleanor Roosevelt was sensitive and also served to explain how the trials of her marriage ultimately contributed to her staggering accomplishments as First Lady.



2. Naturally, for any FDRphile, it is exciting to read new material or a qualified writer's fresh take on exiting aspects of FDR's life. In this case, plenty of specifics, including quotes, from newly uncovered letters. Nicely written and quick-flowing. Numerous annoying errors in dates or date-related facts that perfectionists will easily notice. An example (p. 51) is TR's attendance at the White House 1902 New Year's Eve party "...watching the triumphant TR, recently elected president in his own right..."
   His only election to the presidency did not occur for another two years. I found no less than four date related discrepancies, but enjoyed the book just the same, as Persico has a warm, inviting writing style. jww



3. The marriage of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Eleanor Roosevelt has been written about by countless authors. Eleanor's discovery of a cache of love letters between FDR and Lucy Mercer changed the dynamics of the Roosevelt's entire marriage. FDR promised he would cut off all ties with Lucy, and Eleanor had no reason to doubt that promise until FDR's death, when it was revealed he and Lucy had eventually resumed their friendship, if not the physical aspect as well. Lucy had been present in Warm Springs when FDR died. Joseph E. Persico reveals the dynamics of a relationship between FDR and Lucy Mercer. Even after her marriage to a wealthy socialite, she is drawn back into FDR's orbit and eventually becomes a regular visitor of the president. Perisco draws a portrait of FDR as a lonely man who often was without company or companionship, as his wife and children moved onto lives of their own. He turned to friends and associates to fill the void of a marriage no longer alive. A series of women came into his life to act as a stand-in wife and confidant. As his burdens become heavier and his health becomes frailer he turns back to Lucy, who has always tried to buoy his sprits and seldom condemns or complains. After her husband's death she is more and more in his company bringing comfort, encouragement and admiration. This is a fair depiction of people caught up in the mores and restrictions of their time and society. It is also is a tender and unflinching look at a marriage and subsequent relationships that both partners forge to meet their needs.



4. I was pleasantly surprised with this book. Persico presents lush biographical details about one of America's most enigmatic couples. I felt completely swept away by the intimate details presented and could not put the book down until I finished. This is a very different portrait of the Roosevelts than I have ever read. Very impressed with the scholarship and research that went into this work. My only criticism is that at times there was more than enough expositing of the details of daily life among members of the Roosevelts' social class; this became a bit tiring later on. ***This review is of the Advanced Reader's Copy of the book, which may differ from for sale editions.***



5. Biography is a form of archeology. Over 60 years after Franklin Roosevelt's death, new information is still coming to light, including recently discovered correspondence with Lucy Mercer Rutherfurd. Persico, who authored the superb "Roosevelt's Secret War", uses this and previously discovered documents (including the diary of Margaret "Daisy" Suckley, FDR's cousin) to draw a portrait of a man whose Byzantine personality has baffled researchers and biographers for decades. FDR preferred the presence of women over men, not only romantically but for ordinary company. Perhaps because with women, he did not feel the need to prove anything, perhaps because he loved gossip, FDR revealed himself and the workings of his mind more to women than to men. Previous biographers have referred to the sinuosity of FDR's thought process and his "feminine" mind (this is not meant as an aspersion against his essential masculinity, but reflects a flexibility of which many men are not capable). Persico reveals much of that by detailing his relationships with several women, including his mother Sara, Eleanor, Lucy (truly the love of his life), Missy LeHand, Daisy Suckley, Dorothy Schiff, and his daughter Anna. He also details Eleanor's relationships with Earl Miller, Lorena Hickok, and David Gurewitsch (the latter a younger doctor on whom Eleanor had something of a schoolgirl crush on during her later life.) Persico is impartial, and neither tries to obfuscate nor sensationalize the nature of these relationships. He presents the facts as they are and lets the reader draw the conclusions.
   
   Now the bad news...
   
   There are so many factual errors in this book it's hard to keep track of them, errors which could have been easily avoided with some quick fact checking. Persico refers to FDR's half-nephew, James "Taddy" Roosevelt, as Sara Roosevelt's stepson - - he was her step-grandson while Taddy's father, James "Rosy" Roosevelt was her stepson. He states that Eleanor suffered a case of hives during her honeymoon - - it was FDR who came down with hives. FDR's second inauguration is stated as having occurred on March 4, 1937, it took place on January 20 of that year - - the first January inauguration to happen after passage of the 21st Amendment. (Persico repeats the error with the 1941 inauguration, claiming that as the first January inauguration). Persico also misstates the circumstances under which Harry Truman learned that FDR was dead and Truman was President. Most of the above are so well documented it's hard to fathom how these mistakes were missed. Well, perhaps not: In the acknowledgements, Persico credits his wife and daughter as research assistants. But an impartial, unrelated editor, might have caught these errors.

5 comments about The Bush Tragedy.

1. As a translator from Mexico, I'm keen on all kinds of issues, from medical and psychological to sociological to political, etc. Having an especial interest in U.S. history and how the Bush Dynasty ended up wreaking so much havoc in the U.S. citizenry fabric as well as in peoples formed by human beings -not "illegal aliens"; not "collateral damage"- but Human Beings (i.e., for Christians, brothers and sisters), I find the existence of this kind of book almost offensive. I know already what unfortunate circumstances led Mr. George W. Bush, himself a spoiled kid and human being, to spoil not only his presidency, but also billions of human lives out there that Mr. Jacob Weissman is not considering. It would have been better that this kind of psychoanalysis be made as a preventative measure. Is this candidate amenable not to react hysterically in the face of a new 9/11? Perhaps she would know in advance of such an event? Could she be so evil? Can this other candidate surround himself with wise counselors, does he himself, knowing right from wrong, have the mental capacity to do so? Then the U.S. democracy would stand a better opportunity to really work, but then, the U.S. nation has survived so many dubious presidents it didn't seem necessary to take special precautions in Mr. Bush Jr.'s case. Having read Robert Parry's non-pareil book: Secrecy and Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, it is not difficult to know how exactly your great nation got where it stands now. I will posit the Bush tragedy commenced since Republicans decided there couldn't be more Watergates, politicized objective CIA analysis of the true weakness of the Soviet Union, that way Reagan -that criminal who almost finished some Central American nations and Chile too- and the Elder Bush would not have negotiated behind Carter's back to get elect. And, as another book that seems to exculpate Bush Jr.'s fatal mistakes, I will agree it was the delusions of neo-cons and of the (anti-)Christian Right that pushed Bush Jr's presidency through the mud, and many of the world's nations with it. But above all, are not a country's people entitled to the knowledge that this candidate, and that candidate, really know right from wrong? And if they do, isn't a great Nation like the U.S. entitled to recognize an electoral fraud and disavow it? I conclude it is good to know the reasons why the Bush tragedy occurred, it would be best to go back to basics, separate Church from State, really heed the most honest intentions of the U.S. Founding Fathers, and elect individuals who truly can perform the job of governing domestically (inside) and through wise diplomacy (outside). And no matter whether Bush Sr. spoiled his kid and his entourage pushed Bush Jr. into evil. It takes a wise electorate to choose a Man who'll serve the people who elects him, & won't merely act as the head of an administration that administers the interests of the already powerful and wealthy, to the chagrin of all the "globalized" and market-"freed" weaker nations involved.



2. Molly Ivens warned us all about Dubya in the nineties, when he was wreaking havoc in Texas. So what has happened is no surprise. However, The Bush Tragedy makes me see him and his family entirely differently, as failed humans rather than as the characatures the world sees. The Senior Bush rises somewhat in stature as I see him now, and the son sinks even lower. But each newsclip, each Great Moment in Presidential Speeches, now seems three dimensional rather than like posterboard. Read this book. We have to get smarter.



3. This is probably the most devastating critique I've read of the Bush president, and the reason it's so powerful is that the author isn't a hell-bent partisan. You get the sense that he truly would have preferred that Bush live up to all his best intentions, so when he fails (and fails spectacularly) Weisberg's critique is especially poignant. There are so many factors that lead to this tragic presidency -- the competition with his father, the unexamined substance abuse problems, Rove, Cheney, the Bush/Walker dichotomy -- and Weisberg gives them all fair treatment. I probably hate Bush less as a person now, but I despise his impact on this country all the more.



4. Drawing on some distorted form of Freudian analysis and dabbling in Shakespeare, Weisberg is at some pains to show how George W. Bush's family heritage formed the President's personality. The son is continually referencing his father in comments and actions, while at the same time trying to distance himself from the 41st President . This isn't the first effort along these lines, nor will it surely be the last. In this well-written, but terribly narrow assessment, the author carefully traces how W.'s actions are a reflection of his reactions to his President father.
   
   The account opens with a summary history of the Bush and Walker families. Their rise, successes and especially their personalities lay the groundwork for what follows. Weisberg carefully follows W.'s life in Texas and his attempts at an education in the East. Yale was not a happy time for the young man, and his reaction to the alien world of "The Eastern Establishment" set patterns he would follow throughout his career. As he haltingly moves toward becoming the Republican nominee [although little is given of that process], Bush begins collecting the men - and a woman - who will become his "inner circle". Karl Rove is a sycophant with a dream, manipulating Bush while being subjected to W's banter. Rove is later joined by Dick Cheney, two men with a dream of remaking the Presidency and US society. It's a compelling, if highly disturbing picture.
   
   The Iraq invasion is, of course, the pivot point for Weisberg's analysis, calling the crusade against Saddam Hussein a total blunder. Yet Weisberg, in his depiction, makes a major gaffe of his own. After making serious effort to show how Bush makes decisions with little consideration, then sticks to the choice against any contending opinions, tells us that the President had not chosen to invade until almost the final moment. This is an astounding reversal of what Weisberg has been presenting throughout the book. The author accepts that the Bush regime "honestly" felt Hussein was a threat and the war decision justified on those grounds. Weisberg lightly passes over those such as Richard Clark or Christopher Meyer who testified Bush had decided on "regime change" long before. He ignores Colin Powell's admission that he was fed a lot of "BS" to present to the UN. Indeed, the contrived WMDs the Bush regime touted so vehemently were declared missing by Hans Blix, who receives not a drop of ink here.
   
   Nothing is offered for why US voters should have returned this misfit to the Presidency. It will be the greatest tragedy in US history if Bush leaves the Presidency without facing charges, but this eventuality never enters Weisberg's account. In fact, no real assessment of the long-term impact of the regime's many Constitutional violations is given. We are given the portrait of a vulnerable man, with the most superficial talents holding sway over government procedures and policies unfit for a democracy. Does Weisberg think any one or a generation of successive Presidents is going to be able to set right what the Bush regime has wrought? Any new President will not be able to purge the Supreme Court of the witless hacks Bush has placed there. Worse, the deep penetration of appointments vetted more for their sympathy to "Christian" evangelical views than for any abilities is not easily uprooted and dispensed with. Weisberg may have well fulfilled the mandate he set himself, but as far as the author's concerned, that will all pass into history's assessment when Bush leaves office. The effect on society will endure. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
   
   ** with thanks to Thomas Keneally



5. The service to get it to me was great, faster than expected. The book is outstanding. What an insight to the man we didn't elect twice.