No comments about Hugo Chávez: Sin Uniforme.

3 comments about My Twelve Years with John F. Kennedy.

1. The book was really great and I have read a lot of books on John F Kennedy. The book gave a human aspect of the campaign and the day to day life of the kennedy administration.



2. my twelve years is a very interesting book because
   it's the remembering of his secratary who know him.
   we can learn how he was and not only his politics.
   so read it!



3. I have this book Its a great book and gives you a glimps of the Man John Kennedy who was also President.Its a well rounded book giving the reader the feel of being there.

2 comments about Thomas Jefferson Versus Alexander Hamilton: Confrontations that Shaped a Nation (Bedford Series in History and Culture).

1. This book really gives the reader a sense of what Hamilton and Jefferson were REALLY like. They had disputes and were mistrustful of eachother. There wasn't any school-boy stuff going on here. I recommend this book if you're interested in history and are in college. Good book!



2. This book helps give the reader an excellent prespective on how the Federalists and Anti-Federalists helped shape our nation though debate and press.
   
   I enjoyed this book because it is more of a collection of letters, from both Jefferson and Hamilton, leaving it up to you on how to interpret their stances and personalities.

2 comments about The Carter Presidency: Policy Choices in the Post-New Deal Era.

1. Jimmy Carter must be ranked among our weakest and most ineffectual modern Presidents, and this book fails to take a truly critical examination of Carter and his failed domestic and foreign policies. Upon entering office, Jimmy Carter slashed our military budget and tried to cozy up to the Soviets. Their response was to invade several countries, mainly through their proxies. When the Soviets marched into Afghanistan, Carter's response was to withdraw from the Olympics. After the US embassy was taken over in Iran, Carter tried to appease the Iranians, and then launched a failed and inept rescue mission, which epitomizes Carter's foreign and military record. On the domestic front, it wasn't much better. Energy prices skyrocketed, inflation was rampant, and taxation rose, along with interest rates. Carter's response was to create more government entitlement programs, and accuse the citizenry of malaise. Very, very little was accomplished during the Carter years, as he was a weak, highly flawed little man out of his element on the world stage.



2. After reading books on Reagan and Bush published by University of Press Kansas I had higher expectations than what this book delivered. It is actually written by several people with Fink and Graham editing. This causes several problems, the worst of which is repetition. Fink and Graham frame the major issues at the beginning of the book, and the contributors spend half of the rest of the book repeating what was already written. Also, none of the contributors were actually close enough to the source to offer interesting insight--most of the book seemed to be sourced from the AP. Ironically, the book suffered from many of the same problems as the Carter administration: too many people too distanced from the subject trying to be too objective and never delivering on clear goals. These sort of topical overviews are better handled by one author.

4 comments about Silvio Berlusconi: Television, Power and Patrimony.

1. Italian politics since 1945 has often seemed too unstable and esoteric for most Americans. Paul Ginsborg's short polemic about Silvio Berlusconi shows why people should pay attention. The Berlusconi phenomenon is an amazing, and quite appalling, one. From 1992 to 1994, it was revealed that the conservative Christian Democratic party, which had held uninterrupted power since the war, was deeply, deeply corrupt. So corrupt in fact, that the revelation caused its disintergration. But instead of the Right losing the next elections, a wealthy businessman came along and simply bought a new political party. Silvio Berlusconi's "Forza Italia" was not a party devoted to political debate and discussion. It was staffed by his cronies and devoted to his political cult. With it he won the elections of 1994, even though he was himself deeply compromised by the old regime. Serious allegations of corruption soon led to his loss of power and his electoral defeated in 1996. But he returned to power in 2001. Now in point of fact, the charges against him are more than just "allegations", as that infamous left-wing rag, The Economist, has pointed out. Berlusconi has perjured himself about his membership in a conspiratorial, anti-democratic, quasi-fascist masonic lodge. (He benefited from an amnesty). In the seventies his keeper of one his (one-horse) stables was a notorious mafioso. His personal lawyer, Cesare Preveti, has been convicted of 11 year and 5 year sentences for corrupting judges, though he remains free on appeal. Berlusconi delays his trials to run up against the limitations laws. He amends the limitations laws to render himself immune. He changes the rules of evidence so that trials will be further delayed. And when all that fails, he passes laws giving himself immunity, while seeking to undermine the independence of the magistrates.
   
   This is bad. And it gets worse. For as Ginsborg notes Berlusconi is still backed by more than 40% of Italians. His defeat in 2006 is by no means a sure thing. Indeed he plans to become a powerful President of the Republic. This despite his judical troubles, an anaemic economy, and support for a massively unpopular war. This despite his failure to simplify administrative procedures, or start promised infrastructure projects, though he has reduced the penalties for accounting fraud. Ginsborg himself is one of the leading historians of modern Italy, and he points out Berlusconi's origins in the Milan building trade. He points out how Berlusconi benefited from the intervention of the infamously corrupt Bettino Craxi, who in 1984 ignored the courts and constitutional mandates for a proper broadcasting law to pass a decree without which Berlusconi could not maintain his broadcasting monopoly. (He also points out how Craxi was the godfather of Berlusconi's child out of wedlock, and how Berlusconi comically elides his adultery in discussing the end of his first marriage.) Although Ginsborg tries to be fair, there is not much to be said about about Berlusconi's media: the absence of proper news coverage and documentaries, rampant bias in Berlusconi's favor, more advertisements than the rest of Europe combined, two-hour documentaries about stigmatic priests, a sexism that sometimes seems to have come out of Lolita.
   
   Berlusconi is not a fascist, but he is a threat to democracy. To be exact, he wishes to make democracy safe for the Right and for wealthy people like himself. One should be wary of a man who claims "Better fascism than the bureaucratic tyranny of the judiciary." The party euphemizes the fascist past, with public places and spaces named after "acceptable" fascists and with Berlusconi claiming that Mussolini didn't murder anyone. Whether it is the Bank of Italy, the civil service, public broadcasting, magistrates or the public health system, all have their independence and integrity threatened by Berlusconi. Meanwhile he deals with Murdoch and his own media empire as if conflict of interest laws don't exist, which in Italy they don't. His model polity is a world in which mass apathy is punctuated by his biased media and his political image, where people consent, but do not choose. Ginsborg points out how this project is encouraged by the weaknesses of a centre-left which, purged of its Marxist past, cannot seek to mobilize support, which seeks to compromise and which cannot inspire with its technocratic biases, and which, for one reason or another, cannot attack Berlusconi's venality. Ginsborg's book is not perfect (a law undermining magisterial independence is not made clear, while Ginsborg overestimates the influence of the late Canadian media lord Izzy Aspser). But in an era with declining voter turnout and declining independent media, where media monopoly advances with partisan and unscrupulous conservative politics, and where the left, the centre, and the right-centre are too nervous and exhausted to resist, there are good reasons to fear that Berlusconi's Italy could soon be our world.



2. The author of this book knows how to dramatizize politics. "...something important is happening in Italy, potentially quite sinister, and the seeming normality of life serves to mask it very well." If only it were just a fiction. "Silvio Berlsconi" is a great book on the current state of democracy in Italy, the kind of "modern democracy" heralded by Berlusconi's media empire. If the dictators of the early 20th century have been characterizes as "charismatic leaders" pied pipering away their cults of personality, then today's dictator can be thought of as the sort of highly tailored, well edited "iconic leader," the guy who just LOOKS RIGHT for the job. (Paul Ginsbourg includes a hilarious anecdote in the post-script about Berlusconi who, at a recent press conference, showed up with a face lift he had gotten over Christmas and then proceeds to make the most unfortunate analogy: "The communists...tried to have a face lift in order to hide their real identity, but theirs failed.")
   As relentlessly critical as Ginsbourg is to Berlusconi, it is hard to ignore the facts of his presidency, both rise to and the policies to follow. It is also hard to ignore the remarkable similarity between the current state of Italian politics and those of the U.S. As Ginsbourg writes, "All this will have a familiar ring in Anglo-Saxon ears."
   Democracy is becoming increasingly about television and leadership about being televised. What happens to "freedom" in a community connected only by cable? Ginsbourg makes a couple claims of his own, but the exciting aspect of the book is the fact that it raises such questions at all.



3. Ginsborg is truly a master of italian history, society, and politics. I am not at all surprised with the overwhelming expertise displayed is this book, seeing as all Ginsborg's works display the extent of his knowledge and literary skill. A great "riassunto" of Berlusconi from youth to today, and fairly non-partisan.



4. This book is well written and really tells the story of berlusconis rise, but it is biased against Berlusconi.

No comments about Churchill's Bodyguard: The Authorised Biography of Walter H. Thompson.

4 comments about The Thirty-first of March: An Intimate Portrait of Lyndon Johnson's Final Days in Office.

1. Horace Busby was one of the more interesting witnesses in Robert Caro's biography of LBJ, and I was sorry to hear he had passed on a few years back, here in California. Busby knew where all the bodies were buried in his capacity as top speechwriter for Johnson, extremely close to the man for twenty years or more, and inventor of the catchphrase, "The Great Society."
   
   The book, while never less than elegantly written, is scattershot in its approach, and jumps back and forth in chronology like a human pinball machine, skimming the surfaces here and there, then coming down to dwell lovingly and cinematically on some unlikely venues, such as a trip with Johnson in November of 1963, to Brussels for a conference. LBJ in Brussels, of all places, it's unreal! Here Busby really goes to town, exploring the insecurities that fueled Johnson's drive to the top and which made him the most feared man in politics.
   
   And yet he had his charming side too, and Buzz was there for large chunks of it. There's a long, fleshed out memoir of arriving with Johnson at Hyannisport in 1960, not knowing whether or not Kennedy would want him as his candidate for Vice President. There's no denying that Johnson was the odd man out among the Kennedys; in one hilarious moment he can't understand JFK's accent, despite trying to read his lips. You won't get this kind of intimate, novelistic detail anywhere else.
   
   But often "Buzz" seems overdiscreet, drawing a veil over the very things that the reader wants to know more about. Buzz's son Scott, who introduces this posthumously published memoir, suggests that Buzz came to feel he had given all his "good Lyndon stories" to Caro in their many interviews, and that the book we now have represents perhaps the not-so-good stories which Caro didn't find interesting enough to include in any of the three volumes published so far. And sometimes Buzz's speechwriting strength betray him as a memoirist; his highly praised alliteration for example, grows inane when it is employed to open a paragraph with "The prolonged procrastination was highly provocative . . . "
   
   What else is memorable about this all too brief book? Well, I liked finding out more about Johnson's religious background as a "Digressive." I never even heard to term before, and now it seems utterly key to understanding the man. Buzz' dad, a strict preacher type, hesitated before giving his boy his blessing to work for LBJ, fearing that the latter's "Digressive" qualities would corrupt Buzz. Johnson's own father emerges as a salty old son of a gun, telling his son not to forget that "If a fella starts trying to climb a pole, he usually ends up showing his ass." It was a lesson Johnson was never to forget.
   
   In one touching chapter Busby, together with Interior Secretary Stewart Udall, travel to Gettysburg to represent the administration at the Eisenhower farm, as Ike and Mamie prepare to leave their home forever (they have deeded it to the National Park Service). Both Eisenhowers come to life vividly, and their lives together for forty-five years touchingly adumbrated, in Busby's careful rendering of a moment in time.
   
   Busby provides lovely word portraits both of fragile, thoughtful Jackie Kennedy and the amazing Lady Bird. Either of these would make the book worth reading all by themselves, but yet there is a whole lot more in THE THIRTY-FIRST OF MARCH. Don't let this one slip under your radar.



2. Querying "Lyndon Johnson" on Amazon generates over 18,000 references. The man was a dominant figure in US politics for over 20 years, which goes some way to explaining why he has been written about so prolifically.
   Few books though can surely be as intimate and interesting as Horace Busby's memoir of the man he worked with for most of Johnson's career on the national stage.
   
   The twenty-four year-old Busby joined then Congressman Johnson's team in 1948, a few months prior to Johnson winning a Senate seat. His initial brief was to "put a little Churchill" and motivation into the Texas politician's speeches. He remained with Johnson, in some capacity as adviser, speechwriter, confidante and sometimes almost as therapist until March 31 1968 when Johnson made his famous utterance to the US people that "I shall not seek and I will not accept the nomination of my party for another term as your President," - lines written by Horace Busby.
   
   This is a wonderfully warm, penetrating look at the psychology, temperament and mindset of LBJ particularly in the days prior to his famous announcement. The manuscript was discovered by Busby's son after the author's death in 2000, hence the publication date of 2005. Unfortunately, much of the manuscript seems to have been lost as it does not deal at all with the President's period in the Senate, which by all accounts he bestrode like a colossus.
   
   The reader can appreciate why Busby was so highly rated by his political patron. Much of the book contains wonderful writing and descriptive passages including a very humorous account of how the infamously impatient Congressman Johnson treated Busby when he first reported for work in 1948 - three days later than expected.
   
   Busby crafts some wonderful images, not least when he recounts the terrible events of November 22nd, 1963. The author was in Washington when President Kennedy was assassinated in Johnson's home state of Texas. Co-incidentally, Busby's wife was in Johnson's Washington home doing some research for Lady Bird Johnson at the time of the shooting. She stayed in the house until Mrs. Johnson returned from Dallas - "she saw as no one else did that day, the cold passing of power," as the secret service took control of the house and presidential communications infrastructure was put in place, even before the residents returned from Dallas.
   
   Busby appears to have been a true confidant of the towering Texan. Few (if any) who worked under Johnson would claim he was an easy person to deal with. He could be mean, nasty, uncouth, self-centered, insecure and tyrannical, yet he had very strong motivational skills, sometimes conveyed with great good humor. Johnson was blessed to have a number of very loyal and competent aides - Jack Valenti, Joe Califano and of course Busby who writes of Johnson almost as a son might of a father.
   Because of his close relationship with LBJ, Busby writes compellingly on a number of little known episodes about the President including a dirty tricks campaign initiated by White House insiders to prevent Vice-President Johnson from gaining the nomination to run with Jack Kennedy for the presumptive 1964 campaign. LBJ believed he had but one friend "in that place - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy himself."
   
   The account of the 31st March, when Busby was called to the White House to draft Johnson's final words is both riveting and compelling. Many of Johnson's family and aides did not wish the President to remove himself from the race and blamed Busby for influencing his decision.
   
   The initiative to withdraw though was Johnson's, but when Busby handed him four pages of script - much more than expected, the President `threw up his hands. "Damn" he exclaimed. "You must really want to get me out of town." `
   
   Johnson on a one-to-one level was surprisingly humorous with strong motivational skills, something that rarely came across in his public appearances. Unlike his predecessor, JFK, Johnson never mastered the new media of television.
   
   For those interested in one of the most intriguing characters to attain the presidency, this book is a little jewel. The one regret is that it covers such a short period of the political life of a man whom the author writes was "extroverted, gregarious, and roughshod," but who "sheltered a sensitive, introspective, and unaccountably fragile self inside."



3. "The Thirty-first of March", by Horace Busby takes a heart-warming yet candid look at Lyndon B. Johnson, as few had known him. The book makes for fast, interesting, and enjoyable reading.
   
   Horace Busby was an assistant to Lyndon B. Johnson from 1948 to 1968; those twenty years gave Busby the opportunity to know Lyndon B. Johnson as both a politician and a human being. Busby writes of a thoughtful, engaging, and at times ill-tempered congressional representative, senator, majority leader, vice president, and president of the United States. Readers will find that "The Thirty-first of March" offers a rare look at the human side of Lyndon B. Johnson. Lyndon Johnson was the congressional representative for the Tenth District of Texas, described by Busby as the politician who swam against the political tides; who despised the Texas "sacred cow" (oil utilities), along with big business. Busby writes of Johnson's ability to balance his social insecurities with boundless energy and passion for the causes he so firmly believed in.
   
   According to Busby, Johnson's passions may have been a result of Johnson's close association with President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Johnson is described as a politician who wished to continue the work that was left incomplete by Roosevelt's "New Dealers". Many know the Lyndon B. Johnson who was arrogant, quick-tempered, reclusive, and a veteran of the political arena - he may have even been a conniver at times. However, many are unaware of Johnson's compassion for ordinary people - the downtrodden. Horace Busby brings this to center stage by giving readers a clear view of what most mattered to Lyndon B. Johnson, who believed that
   
   "[p]eople are good . . . what the average folks want is very simple: peace, a roof over their heads, food on their tables, milk for their babies, a good job at good wages, a doctor when they need him, an education for their kids, a little something to live on when they're old, and a nice funeral when they die."
   
   Busby writes of his own good fortune in making the acquaintance of such influential and powerful people as Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and their families. The book is sprinkled with short stories of these enduring encounters, which make for interesting reading. It is, however, the relationship between Busby and Johnson that the memoir brings to the forefront, which will most interest readers. Busby recollects how passionate Johnson was on domestic issues such as housing, education, healthcare, and conservation. Busby also describes Johnson's anguish and distress after receiving the news of Martin Luther King's assassination; not just for the country, but for the King family and all American people - African Americans as well as whites....
   
   "The Thirty-first of March" was not meant to encompass Johnson's political career, but readers will gain a new understanding and respect for the ideas, accomplishments, and sacrifices of the political phenomena that was Lyndon B. Johnson. The book will also give readers and future biographers new insights into the persona that was LBJ.



4. Horace Busby provides and intimate and interesting view of President Lyndon Johnson in THE 31ST OF MARCH. Although Busby provides selected views of other incidents that were key moments in the Johnson presidency and of course the story of how he became involved with Johnson the focus is on LBJ's decision not to seek re-election and the process of announcing that decision to the world.
   
   Busby's view of LBJ is that of a much more fragile man than generally preceived of. It's a quick read. Busby's walks the reader through the family quarters of the White House and the inner workings of the presidency with facinating detail. One particulary interesting aspect of the story is how Johnson was treated at JFK's funeral. Most accounts are totally sympathetic to the Kennedy's but in reading Busby, you see that LBJ had a side too. The reader comes away with a very unique view LBJ.
   
   Though brief, the work is very powerful. It is the story of friendship, loyality and devotion. I wish that the son, who edited the work would have provided a brief description of the relationship between Busby and LBJ after the White House years. It would rounded out the story.

4 comments about FDR: The New Deal Years 1933-1937.

1. I bought this book on a flyer in 1987, read it once and put it on the shelf. During a televised Clinton address from the Oval Office, I noticed on the credenza behind him "FDR: The New Deal Years" in its distinctive silver and red jacket. Well, if its good enough for the White House...so I read it again, and now understand why it stood on the President's desk. It's an outstanding work of narrative history. Volume one was awarded the Francis Parkman Prize, but this is clearly the next best in Davis's monumental five volumes on FDR and his times. It is a lively depiction of the New Deal and its famous characters, including Louis Howe, Harry Hopkins, the Brain Trust, Eleanor and Sara Delano all orbiting around the Sun King FDR. It is also an excellent analysis of how outright revolution was avoided and our capitalist system preserved in the darkest hours. But most of all it is an enjoyably facinating portrait of the man who everyone wanted to be near but almost no one, not even Eleanor, really knew.



2. This really is a remarkable book and outstanding contribution to FDR scholarship. All of the books in this series are probably the best books on the life and times of Franklin Roosevelt, but I think this is one is the best.

   In this, the second volume in the series Davis explores just how much of the early stages of FDR's presidency owed to his career as governor, how his concerns as governor of the state of New York were later transfered from Albany to Washington. Concerns with conservation and the power monopolies in these years were later to serve as the springboard for a number of New Deal initiatives.

   Anyone wishing to learn more about the greatest president of the 20th century should look no further than this series of books by Mr. Davis. Sadly, Mr. Davis did not live to bring the series to its logical conclusion in 1945. Had he done so, this would be the definative study of FDR. As things are, it is likely to be the best biography for many years to come, despite some problems with vol. 4 and its premature conclusion.




3. Some people claim that Arthur Schlesinger wrote the definative history of the New Deal and FDR back in the 1950s. These same people probably are unfamiliar with this wonderful book by Kenneth Davis.

   This is not just a history of the period of 1933-37, but an extended mediatation on how we are a nation are going to respond to the changes brought about by industrialization.

   Do not be put off by this last statement because Davis is an excellent writer, historian and philosopher. The best part of this book deals with how social security came to be shaped in the form that it finally was. How all manner of elements came together for the legislation to be written. It is just remarkable.

   Davis is evenhanded in this book and in the series as a whole. He identifies FDR's triumphs but at the same time is willing to be critical when he feels the actions warrent it.

   Davis and his series have been recognized repeatedly although I believe that they probably were not given the praise that this series deserved. They are simply the best thing to be written on FDR by a historian.




4. Life was hard here at home for most people in the 1930s, but most especially those who depended on the land for food and sustenance. His New Deal ruined the farming industry and now we are indepbted to other countries for the majority of our food, soon to be medicines also. Huey Long would have made every man a 'King' in his own home, but that was not to be. We have no kings in the USA, only politicians.
   
   TVA was developed in the Thirties with all the many dams built in Tennessee and Alabama to harnass the wild Tennessee River. I wish he had picked the Mississippi and left Tennessee along. I was born at the forks of the rivers where the Tennessee began, and that is not such a good heritage. TVA is still run by the government, but it has seen its time. It is obsolete. Like Johnson's Grand Illusion, Roosevelt's New Deal was just a political ploy to win the election.
   
   We all know that the Great Depression started in 1932. In August, 1934, Utah became t he 36th state to ratify the 21st amendment, ending Prohibition. Made Jack happy, though he hadn't been born for 20 more years. In July, 1934, the bank robber Dillinger was gunned down by government men as he leaves a Chicago theater -- betrayed by a woman in red, whom he trusted. Just proves you can't trust those women who like to show off. Bonnie and Clyde had been killed a couple of weeks previously. Why didn't they come on to Knoxville and catch Billy the Kid was he escaped across the Gay Street bridge? In September, 1934, the Dust Bowl in Oklahoma sent lots of people moving from that hell hole to California where the dreamers and schemers had congregated. They crossed the deserts not for the Gold Rush this time but for jobs and money to pay the exorbinant prices for vegetables and meats they were not allowed to grow on their own anymore, delcation of the U.S. Government, which is still in effect today in some areas.
   
   Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal (due to the assassination of Huey Long of Louisiana on September 8, 1935 -- exactly 71 years ago) took effect. FDR was the first American president who did not think in terms of this country being a place set apart from the rest of the world. He had the foresight to see the future of Europe, and especially England (with the help of Churchill), as being closely tied to the future of the USA. According to Mr. Vaughan in 'Hard Times,' there were many isolationists in Congress and the Senate who would, if they could, separate the globe into two halves.
   
   The number one box office draw for 1934 in Hollywood films was Will Rogers, followed closely by Clark Gable; on down the list of major stars were Mae West and Joan Crawford. It was a grand place back then. In 1936, Eugene O'Neill won the Nobel Prize for Literature. His plays included "Anna Christie" and "Desire Under the Elms," both were later made into wonderful movies.
   
   In 1938, Orson Welles played his radio stunt reading H. G. Wells' 'The War of the Worlds.' ONe local radio station here plays it every Halloween night as that is when the great Orson scared this country to death almost. June 4, 1940, Hell is Dunkirk. Roosevelt was just the president we needed to work with Winston Churchill of England whose parentage was half American. However, it took Truman to have the bomb dropped to stop the war.

No comments about Benjamin Harrison: Hoosier President: The White House and After 1889-1901 (Signature Ser.).

5 comments about Rethinking Camelot: JFK, the Vietnam War, and U.S. Political Culture.

1. What is missing from Chomsky's book is the notion that if anyone told JFK right to his face precisely what the United States was going to do in Nam for the following ten years (I think George Ball tried to do this), the president himself wouldn't have believed it, and could have told him, "You're crazy . . . " (as I remember this, the president expressed himself with an expletive) and really meant it. Anyone who thinks that American policy in Vietnam ever made sense is underestimating the ability of the government to lie whenever it is trying to picture what its national honor adds up to in evens and odds. I knew that something was crazy when I read in Rethinking Camelot that John Newman had written a letter to "The Nation" in which he said, "Let's get serious." Actually, the policy always begged to be compared with some outrageous joke, and "The Nation" has been great at coming up with jokes (I have even read the admission by Calvin Trillin that he used jokes in his column) to match such situations. Possibly the funniest thing that I ever read just showed up again in the April 10, 2000 issue of "The Nation," in a book review by John Leonard. "It's worth recalling that when Freud finally got permission to leave Vienna in 1938, the Gestapo obliged him to sign a certificate saying that he had been well treated by the authorities. He added a sentence of his own: 'I can heartily recommend the Gestapo to anyone.'" (p. 26) American policy in Vietnam was always a dream of imposing that kind of order in a country in which a majority of the people were not Americans, and might even try to kill Americans, if you want to know the truth. I can name one Kennedy adviser who was willing to tell LBJ in November, 1965, that the odds were about even that things were getting worse in Vietnam, and were going to get a lot worse as the plans at that stage were implemented, but he wouldn't have even been keeping his job if he told everybody what he thought. I'm actually glad McNamara didn't resign in protest, because he knew that other people could do his job worse than he could, and he was willing to sacrifice himself to save the country from the kind of stupidity that was assumed for anyone in his position, of which he was highly aware.



2. Excellent overview of the relationship between American political/corporate culture and the origens of the Vietnam War. In this case, Chomsky looks at the historical revisionism that clouded the discourse on the assassination of JFK. The book does not debunk the notion that a conspiracy in Dallas occurred; rather the emphasis is on how JFK simply continued (and, in some cases,expanded) the basic thrust of American foreign policy. Using mostly the internal record, Chomsky details JFK and his virulent hawkish and anti-communist ideology, a fact which Camelot propogandists attempt to hide or minimize. Once again, the point is to highlight the reality: a single political party exists today to do the bidding for the corporate sector (of which the military-industrial complex is a large component). Remember, JFK had increased defense spending and forced through a great deal of pro-corporate legislation (while also dragging his heels on Civil Rights legislation and scolding the Warren Court for its progressive leanings) prior to the assassination. All in all, another worthy contribution from one of the great American intellectuals of the 20th century.



3. Just finished reading this book and found the portion
   debunking JFK idolators' revisionist history to be well done,
   although rather long winded. The rest of the book is pure paranoia - I was alive during the Vietnam buildup and well remember the motives that led to intervention. Surprisingly,
   Chomsky attributes dark motives to practically everything
   the US did during those times, and virtually never touches on the motives most often at play - the defeat and containment of Communism, which at times looked as though it was going to win.
   Chomsky seems to think that Communism was essentially just a sort of ultra socialism. That is his biggest error in the book:
   a severe naivete about what Communism was and why much was sacrificed to ensure that it didn't envelope the planet. In other words, he displays an extreme case of tunnel vision.



4. Chomsky's pseudo-dissidence is revealed by, among many other lies found throughout his oeuvre, his repeated insistence upon the CIA's unwavering fidelity to successive Presidents. Where the evidence is contrary, he ignores it. Nowhere is the suppression more systematic than in Rethinking Camelot: JFK, the Vietnam War, and US Political Culture. Consider, in particular, his Stalinoid survey of the Vietnam coverage of the New York Times from October 3 to December 4, 1963 (in this paperback edition, pp.82-83). One omission, among many, will suffice.
   
   On October 3, 1963, the NYT carried a column entitled "The Intra-Administration War In Vietnam." It opened: "The Central Intelligence Agency is getting a very bad press in despatches from Vietnam..."
   
   Its author, Arthur Krock, proceeded to quote extensively from one such despatch, "Arrogant CIA Disobeys Orders in Vietnam", by Richard Starnes of the Scripps-Howard group. The quotes below are from Starnes's courageous and hauntingly prophetic original.
   
   According to Starnes's source, "Twice the CIA flatly refused to carry out instructions from Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge", even though one set had been brought direct from Washington. Likening the CIA's growth to a "malignancy", which he was "not sure event the White House could control any longer", the source predicted: "If the United States ever experiences a Seven Days in May it will come from the CIA" (Washington Daily News, October 2).
   
   Chomsky was, and remains, the creation and creature of the Central Intelligence Agency. Rethinking Camelot represented the cashing of the CIA's most important dissident chip in its unending war against both genuine dissent, and JFK's memory. It is a measure of the fear, corruption and cowardice prevalent in mainstream Anglo-American academia and media that Chomsky's imposture has gone unchallenged for so long.



5. Utilizing the declassified documentary record during the Kennedy Administration, Chomsky makes quite clear the unpleasant fact that John F. Kennedy was essentially no different from Eisenhower, Johnson or even Nixon with regard to foreign policy.
   
   While I am a fan of Oliver Stone's JFK, this book provides a detailed refutation of many claims and assumptions the film implies. For example, the notion that John F. Kennedy was secretly against U.S. intervention in Vietnam (yet the troops remained there the entire 3 years he was in office), and National Security Memo 263 has been totally taken out of context, as Kennedy made it quite clear that he didn't want withdrawal with failure, and that the "overriding objective" was victory in Vietnam. And National Security Memo 273, the memo which essentially reversed the "withdrawal" plan noted in 263, was drafted on November 21st (while Kennedy was still alive), and signed by LBJ on November 26th, clearly indicating that Johnson was simply continuing JFK's policies in Nam. As for his remarks, he gave similar remarks to that of why Bush gives that the US should stay in Iraq. On June 17th, 1963, Kennedy said, "For us to withdraw from that effort would mean a collapse not only of South Vietnam, but Southeast Asia. So we are going to stay there", then saying, "I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw" - that's just a sample. On November 22nd, 1961, Kennedy authorized a large scale attack on South Vietnam (yes, South), napalm and "counter-terror" (U.S. terror). It's interesting that this authorization was signed on November 22nd, 1961, exactly 2 years before Kennedy suffered the fate he authorized - murder.
   
   As well, Kennedy authorized the invasion of Cuba on April 17th, 1961, and authorized Operation Mongoose, and only turned down Operation Northwoods because he was he knew it wouldn't work. Kennedy, according to the official documents, sanctioned crop burnings, germ warfare, sinking fishing boats, etc. John and Bobby knew all about almost everything that happened, and anyone who says otherwise is full of it.
   
   Cross reference everything Chomsky says with the declassified documentary record, which is available in book form in the book The Kennedys and Cuba, assembled by Mark J. White.
   
   Once you learn about Kennedy's policies, his assassination, and all the conspiracies become completely irrelevant because he didn't do ANYTHING different from his predecessor and successors. He wanted Vietnam to be a sphere of influence of the United States, regardless how many civilians died, he wanted Castro to be murdered, and Cuba to return back to being mafia and US Corporation ran, and even implemented the fascist dictatorship of Brazil to take power, which they did in 1964, all of which break international law. But then again, since when does the US observe international law?
   
   This is a must read.
   
   
   Anton Batey
   Anton_Batey@yahoo.com