5 comments about Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't.

1. I studied Islam on my own for 6 months last year. I read ONLY Muslim texts and avoided anything like this until I could form my own opinion. I have 5 English translations of the Qur'an, Bukhrai and Muslim (collections of hadith) and Tafsir Ibn Kathir. I have read as much of it as I could stand.
   
   You can do it the hard way like I did, or you can read this book. Spencer has Islam spot on accurate. Islam is not a religion of peace. In fact it's more of a tribal code of law than a religion. The Islamic world view divides the world into two camps, the House of Islam, and the House of War. If you aren't Muslim, you are in the House of War.
   
   There may be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. Learn it the easy way by reading Spencer, or learn it the hard way and pick up a Qur'an and hadith, but learn it! You need to learn the truth for yourself.



2. It's astonishing that other reviewers think this book presents "facts". It is a starkly ignorant book (and this is an understatement) of vast swathes of Islamic history which, if examined, would disprove its main theses almost point by point (for e.g. that Islam is the "religion of the sword", rejects rationality, etc). Islam is not perfect, and no religion is, but it is downright dishonest to take a look at a book (the Quran) and base your judgment of an entire culture on it. Look at the history of a culture and how it USED the book as a civilizational project. In this respect, Islam has been astonishingly open and tolerant. Again, I am not saying Islam is perfect, but the above picture is so ignorant and biased that it doesn't take much research to show that it is grossly distorting.
   
   An even cursory acquaintance with Islamic civilization and history ought to dispel such long-standing ideologies as the above (not to mention that Christianity waged battles of the sword in the Mideast and the Americas of horrifying proportions, in which millions of people died (the Spanish Conquistadors or Columbus were peaceful Christians?!! read the historical record and see for yourself what a wonderful and loving Christians they were). Despite that, and despite being a non-religious person, I condemn neither Islam nor Christianity wholesale as faiths). Religions are not coherent bodies of belief; hell, not even philosophy is, and it is one of the most systematic attempts in human history to systematize our beliefs about the world, so how could religion be?
   
   For the historically challenged like our author:
   even in medieval times, there were debates over the question of reason and its relation to faith in Islam. The great Muslim philosopher Averroes went so far as to say that philosopher and prophets are on an equal footing, i.e. that prophets have no more claim on the truth than do philosophers. There were even atheists in the history of Islam, one of them for instance was the great physicist Ibn al-Haitham, and the great poet al-Ma'ari.
   finally, Islamic philosophy and science had an enormous impact on Western thought and have been one of the prime sources (often unacknowledged) behind the development of Western modernity. They went far beyond the Greek philosophers and scientists they learned from and developed the scientific method before even the great Bacon. read a good history of science and you'll see that immediately (for instance the renowned BBC science historian James Burke in his series which you can find on youtube, called The Day the Universe Changed, shows this very clearly. And that's just he tip of the iceberg as far as Muslim contributions to science and rational inquiry go).
   so one can only conclude that far from Islam being irrational, it is the book that is.
   
   so please spare us the hate-mongering in the guise of "facts", since the book is clearly deeply under-infomred! and please dear reviewers who bought this cheap trick of a book, don't be so gullible as to base wholesale condemnations of entire civilizations and cultures on one or even several biased accounts. surely one has to be more responsible and inquire and search for oneself what the truth of such matters is. after all, isn't this an Emersonian (and American) virtue, of "self-reliance"? or do you simply abandon critical judgment and rationality when Islam is under discussion?
   so before accusing others of being irrational barbarians, let's look at ourselves in the mirror when we so heinously misrepresent and condemn an ENTIRE civilization. we ought to be more responsible as citizens of a democracy.



3. Robert Spencer is among only a handful of people in the United States that is not only a walking wealth of information on the religion of Islam, but has the courage to speak his convictions. This is a truly courageous act for which he receives numerous death threats from those "Religion of Peace" adherents. If you want to experience a very small taste of what his courage brings Mr. Spencer for exercising his freedom of speech rights, just peruse the 1-star ratings on this book. Mr. Spencer has always maintained a standing invitation to anyone wanting to debate his facts in an open and public discussion. Few have attempted to do so and those who have, always came out the losers. The reason is that Mr. Spencer does not speak from his emotions or personal bias, but from the scriptures of the Koran, the Sira and Hadith, as determined by the major religious teachings of all the major Sunni and Shia theological leaders in the world today.
   His many detractors don't offer any evidence that what Mr. Spencer writes and says is in error, they simply do what ignorant bullies do the world over. They threaten and resort to character assassination, which is all they are left with when confronted by the truth. Almost every single book authored by Mr. Spencer has made the New York Times Bestseller list, and for good reason. Hasn't anyone noticed how the "Religion of Peace" followers rioted over the Danish cartoons, the short video "Fitna," the murder of Danish citizen Theo Van Gogh, the endless fatwa's calling for the murder of those who speak out against the "Religion of Peace," such as Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses? Has anyone noticed the worldwide celebratory crowds of thousands of Muslims around the world, who are so quick to publicly celebrate the Iranian takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979? Or the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983? And of course the worldwide euphoric eruption of sheer joy from Muslims around the world on 9/11?
   More to the point, has any one else noticed the deafening silence from the Muslim community against these same acts? Mr. Spencer's book "Religion of Peace" is factual and well written. I would highly recommend any of his books and eagerly await his future ones as well. If you don't want to know what is going on in the world of Dar al-Islam then go back to sleep, but if you are interested in your future and the future of our children, then I would read every article or book written by the superbly knowledgeable and talented Robert Spencer.



4. Spencer is well studied in islam... This is more of an eye openening / informative book rather than an "islam bashing" book as the bad rerviews here accuse. If you want to understand the jihadists of today you must understand the historical / religious roots of their belief. Spencer points out text in the koran / hadiths to the modern jihad and helps remove the whitewash of the "religion of peace". I thought it was a good read.



5. Robert Spencer produces a hateful, revisionist, and triumphalistic argument about why he thinks Christianity and the Western world (he conflates the two) are superior to Islam. Christianity is a religion of peace and dialogue and Islam a religion of terror and suppression. He accuses Christianity's detractors of "cherry-picking" evidence of the support of violence in the Old and New Testaments, but then goes on to do the same in his treatment of the Qu'ran and Christian history itself.
   But the most basic error he makes is to dismiss the long and bloody history of Christian cruelty, forced conversion, slavery, destruction of native cultures, and environmental disaster with a flick of his temporal wand. Yes, there were Christians who did such things in the past, he notes, but this was not essential to Christian's message of peace and love for others. Besides, most of these more troublesome episodes of Christian history were not as bad as they seemed and have now passed. Christian anti-Semitism was not all that bad (especially compared with Muslim anti-Semitism). Slavery was a mistake and Christians finally figured that out.
   Even if one accepts the latter point that such Christian atrocity-mongering has diminished (which is eminently debatable with good Christians in America still enthused for racial and gender inequality and positively foaming at the mouth for guns, capital punishment, and a vast nuclear arsenal) it is patently false to suggest that it was anything other than the Enlightenment, the throwing off of theocracies, and the embrace of secular, constitutional democracies, that spurred our best, though always fragile, efforts to live with our differences without killing each other.
   No one is arguing, as Spencer seems to believe, that there are not Islamic terrorists and theocrats who wish to suppress people with Sharia law. They use religion to justify their violence. Yet Spencer ignores the consensus that most of the anger that drives such things is political rather than religious. It is anger at Western cultural hegemony, globalization, and the inequality of wealth that feeds the discontent of radical Islam.
   Why should Christians who do evil get the benefit of the doubt that they simply missed the point of their faith's deeper teachings on peace in the pursuit of more worldly and self-serving ends, while Muslims do so because they are just following their religion? Because Spencer wants to goad on the great "Clash of Civilizations" view of the world and take up good, loving, Christian arms, if necessary, to defend the great Western civilization of peace and reason. With books like these, he and his ilk may just succeed.

5 comments about State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III.

1. This book is pretty much what I expected from the title. Bob Woodward makes it seem like he was in the room with the participants, although what he is writing is his own impression of interviews. OK, the guy does have access to a large number of high level politicians and others in government. Any liberal that already hates the Bush Cabal and reads this book is going to say, "great, four stars, I told you so, just what I thought" because the book is page after page of criticism of just about everyone in the administration. Those more conservative who may have voted for Bush will wonder how the hell things got so out of hand if what he writes is true. Woodward may well be correct in his assessment of the situation, but down to writing about actual conversations that took place between people? No, I don't think so. This book reminds me of "Dereliction of Duty" by H.R. McMaster, an Army West Point Major (now Colonel), about how McNamara took over the planning for the Viet Nam War and refused to let the Joint Chiefs of Staff offer advice to President Johnson. Woodward eerily seems to be saying some of the same things, in that Rumsfeld did just about the same thing as McNamara. He personally picked a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs that would back up his decisions, many of which with hindsight appear to be wrong, and while other heads of the services may have disagreed, those views were not presented to Bush. I am an avid reader of history and especially about the wars that the US has been involved. When a glaring mistake is made about a trivial matter many will say, never mind, it really doesn't matter. YES it does! If Woodward can't get his facts straight about something trivial, and the editor doesn't catch it, then what else has been missed or exaggerated? On page 115 Woodward writes about General Abizaid "whose combat experience in Grenada was dramatized in the 1986 Clint Eastwood movie "Heartbreak Ridge. . . " Well, first the film dramatized a ridge in Korea that had to be taken as it over looked Chinese forces and was heavily defended and rigged with tunnels and thus UN casualties were very high in the battle. It was waged while peace talks were going on and thus controversial. Eastwood moved the scene up to the Viet Nam war so as to show the futility of that conflict in his movie. I know this because I am a Korean War era Army veteran! This may not mean much to the average reader but it sure did to me. This is the point I gave up on the book as fact, and started reading it as opinion, and that is what it is, opinion based on interviews. So read it if you are those who want information to further criticize the Bush administration, or even if you voted for Bush and want to have a better idea of what seems to have happened and why the war has gone on so long. Obviously, a large number of mistakes have been made, and it may be that Rumsfeld took detail planning and made decisions over the advice of the JCS about the Iraq war like MacNamara did with the Viet Nam war. They both appear to have excluded the advice of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who by law report to the President and are supposed to give advice directly. Rumsfeld, who by his choice of Myers, got him to agree, despite a great deal of anguish by General Myers, if you believe the book. McMaster, had the value of time to research his book from notes of all the meetings and participants because it has been over 40 years. I think it is too soon to judge the war from a historical basis as not enough time has elapsed, and we are still involved. This is not to say that we shouldn't get out or stay in, just we don't know yet the outcome. And for the record I want us OUT ASAP. Let's just hope the sacrifice was worth it in lives and money spent. I better understand those who are so intently against it, so at least I learned something from reading the book.



2. 
   I think the American nation needs this good, thought-provoking book. It gives us insight as to why it is so important to vote and to research the party and the officials we are voting for. "State of Denial" documents the Bush administration's Iraq debacle from the beginning. It is an Eye-Opener (well, at least for me, that is). I have always been pro-republican, but this well researched book proves beyond any doubt that Bush is unfit to lead the nation as he lacks the necessary experience and skills for that job. All in all it is a good enlightening book that should be read by everyone. I also recommend The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream



3. What few good points are made over and over ad nauseum. Eventually one determines this work is ideologically based and lacking in serious academic underpinnings. This work supported properly in it's foundation would be an interesting read. Nice try Steyn.



4. Woodward writes a scathing expose of Don Rumsfeld and the mistakes that led us to war. I found myself smiling wryly time and again, shaking my head that there could be so much incompetence in a group of supposed professionals. Again, makes one wonder about the true reasons for going to war in Iraq.



5. Without a doubt this book should be required reading for every American. In clear and precise detail Bob Woodward lays out how the Bush administration mislead this country into a war with Iraq. And that isn't even the only provocative detail in this astounding book. It's filled with astonishing details about the way the Bush administration operated during the run up to the war and during the war. An important book that every American NEEDS to read.

5 comments about The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11.

1. Like living in denial? Then don't read this book; it's filled with referenced facts.



2. Let's say the Bush administration, or a cabal of Neo-cons, pulled off this incredible deception. Why didn't they then plant at least the elements used for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? The former is so hard, the latter comparatively simple. Bush would be vindicated and marching through Tehran by now. And it's not like he didn't have a huge window of time to "discover" some fissionable material. This whole conspiracy idea makes no sense without that crucial next step.



3. I was a low level IntelGrunt funnelling TOP Secret crap to big daddy,
   NSA a long time ago; plus, after that very interesting, very educational stint in what we called 'The Association of Presidential Whipping Boys,'
   I became a first responder---a firefighter with DeKalb County Fire Dept.
   in Georgia. Plus, for two quarters, I worked for Law Engineering which
   tested building materials.
   
   During Disaster Pre-Plan classes, we discussed:
   
   1. Trade Towers collapse predicted since 1974!
   2. Terrorists using commercial airliners as human guided missiles have
   been predicted since WWII.
   3. Commercial Pilots carrying US Mail were required to carry firearms AND be proficient in their use since early days of Airmail.
   3. Terrorist profiling put in place in late '60s by Johnson Administration---primarily targeting Muslims.
   etc...
   4. Presidents Eisenhower and Truman in the late 40s and early 50s set a goal for the US to become totally energy independent by YR2000 so as
   to empower the US, prevent Islam from gaining power due to flood of US
   petro Dollars AND to prevent a nuclear world war between Christians and
   Muslims.
   Unfortunately for US AND nations of Persian Gulf, the Military Industrial
   Complex wanted war.
   
   From 1969 onwards, Nixon, Kissinger, Ford, Carter, Bush, Sr., etc...
   wanted war, put a stop to US energy independence, stopped profiling
   Muslim terrorists, outlawed effective fire suppression systems for
   Commercial high rise buildings (Except for 'critical' Government buildings like The White House, Pentagon, 911 Comm Centers), destroyed
   the Shah, encouraged Muslim radicals, betrayed Kuwait by giving green
   light to Iraq to invade, betrayed Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc...
   
   Long story short. The morning of 911, I called Atlanta FBI and Atlanta
   FEMA minutes after the second airliner hit and advised them to warn NYC
   via their dedicated comm system that the 2nd tower hit would collapse within 4 hours and the other would collapse shortly thereafter and warned
   them to evacuate 1 mile from Ground Zero.
   
   I recorded the calls to FBI and FEMA, NSA has record of my call.
   Recordings sent to Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and other
   major news outlets. No one contacted me.
   
   Now Conspiracy nuts with little training in materials testing write
   books that muddy the waters by saying that the Tower were brought
   down by set charges , the Israelis did it and other rot.
   
   Bill Bryan
   IntellGrunt at yahoo dot com



4. Prof. David Ray Griffin presents a persuasive & realistic scenario, which, in short, suggests that (rogue) factions within the U.S. government were complicit in the cataclysm of 9/11. To reflect on the heedlessness of the official account, consider that the Clinton-Lewinsky investigation initially received more funding than the 9/11 investigation. The greatest structural malfunction in the world's history receives less cash than a petty inquiry into the promiscuity of our former President, Bill Clinton. Not only was the funding inadequate, but the evidence - the steal beams, the core, literally everything - was all removed from the scene and shipped to scrap yards. The evidence was utterly destroyed and less than 1% of the steel actually exists today. My only problem with this book is that Griffin did not take the time to verify all the facts that he cites in his 168 pg book. He instead takes a large amount of the `facts' from the books by Nafeez Ahmed, Michel Chossudovsky, & Thierry Meyssan. Regardless of this, if you are interesting in learning about the inconsistencies and implausibilities found in the official account, this book is worth your time & money. Griffin thoroughly covers the majority of the issues - the NORAD "stand-down" (fighter jets stayed on the ground for 60 "decisive" minutes), the Standard Operating Procedures, the "implosion" (as used by NIST) of WTC 1, 2, & 7, the Pentagon damage area, Shanksville crash site, cell phone calls at 20+k altitude, etc - and appealingly so. The information provided on the collapse is less than stellar. I expected to see questions such as - "If the official account is true, why did gravity (and pockets of air) cause 2-ton steel girders to be launched 600 ft from the building?" Instead he focuses on the pulverized concrete. Overall, Griffin's book serves as a great introduction to the attacks of 9/11. Buying this paperback will not dissatisfy, nor disillusion you from "reality"; instead, by the time you reach the heart of the book, you'll be gnashing your teeth in contempt at our nation's obdurate acceptance of the "official account". When you arrive at the book's conclusion, you will undoubtedly discover that the official account stinks to the high heavens!



5. The collapse of the twin towers didn't look right to me, but so much was happening that I had to let it go. There was the antrax attacks that was "military grade" thought to come from Ft. Dietrick. There was a killer in my neighborhood called the DC sniper. Oh yeah, lets not forget the invasions of Afganistan and Iraq. Everything happened so fast it made me forget about the stolen 2000 presidential elections. Then one day I heard David Ray Griffin discussing his book on CSPAN and it was like waking and finding I was living in a nightmare.
   Most people are aware that the attack on Pearl Harbor was a LIHOP(Let it happen on purpose) operation as documented in Robert Stinnson's "Day of Deceit" and John Toland's "Infamy". Apparently this action or inaction was taken so that the isolationist American public would be suffiently enraged and easily led into war.
   In 2000, a neo-con think tank called the Project for a New American Century wrote a white paper that called for invasions of Central Asia but felt that a catalyzing event would be needed to gain public support, "A New Pearl Harbor."
   David Ray Griffin recounts the terrible events and systematically deconstructs the official story by simply asking valid questions.
   The questions are haunting and the testimony of survivors and first responders is most damning.
   Have courage and read this book.

5 comments about Down Range: Navy SEALs in the War on Terrorism.

1. Like some of the other reviewers here have commented, based on the background of the author and the notes on the book's cover, I was expecting a much more exciting read. The reality, however, is that Couch hides behind the excuse of "classified details" for most of this work. The early pages are all extremely redundant if you have ever read anything at all about the SEALs; there is nothing new there. And much of the mission details are very sparse and vague. I do "get" that the very nature of the work these men do requires secrecy, but I always feel a little taken when a book promises to divulge some of this information and then ultimately fails to do so. Couch hints more than once at a seething tension between the different service branches by taking every opportunity to make sure many pats on the back are handed out all around. It starts to feel very plastic and forced after a while. Overall I would not recommend this book to anyone who has done much reading in this genre. Frankly it's just boring, light on operational nitty-gritty, and way too easy to read. It took me about 4 hours to read cover to cover, and for $15 for the paperback I feel a little ripped-off. It's an okay way to get an overview for what these incredible men do for our country, but a waste of time for anyone who has a few books under their belt. I won't be reading any of Couch's other works based on this piece.



2. Well, I picked up this book because I thought, "Sweet. SEALs, middle east, covert ops, what's not to love??" Well the book was more like a documentary or briefing most of the time. It focuses far too much on the development of a SEAL and their organization. If I wanted to read about that, I would've picked up a book about the making of a Navy SEAL. I was disappointed. The story really only had a few exciting parts and those tended to come towards the end of the book. Let's put it this way, he spends around ten pages telling what should've been an exciting mission aboard a ship, only to tell us that the men on board were not dumb enough to carry weapons. Hmph. If you are looking for enemy contact, look elsewhere.



3. I thoroughly enjoyed "The Warrior Elite" and everything I enjoyed about that book was gone from this one. Dick Couch did a good job of making the trainees of BUD/S Class 228 personable, but "Down Range" is a very dry read. It might be due to increased security concerns and classified operational details, but I did not enjoy this book as much.



4. Apart from being exciting and informative,it is impossible to put down this book without the utmost respect for the men serving our country (and indeed all of mankind) in the world's most dangerous places. This is real, these men are heroes, and we must all hope that they succeed in their missions. Clearly, we couldn't put our hopes in any better warriors.



5. Personally I would have enjoyed more reports of actual action involvements. Although there were numerous reporrts of Seal involvements the narrative,for me , became slowed down and complicated by the frequent acromyms and description(s) of command decision chains. Am looking forward to strarting "Chosen Soldier" next

5 comments about Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington.

1. "Some of the most respected leaders of the Muslim community in America--the so-called "moderates" . . . are harboring a secret dream about the future of American culture." (p. xi) In the tradition of old-fashion journalism, this book names names and gives facts and figures, quotes exactly the passages you need to know.
   
   The first Part gives the particulars on the "politically correct suicide" guiding American Democrat AND Republican policies at the present time, and how Islamists are using American institutions to undermine America.
   
   Part II points out exactly where and how the Islamists have infiltrated the U. S. government. Part III details the role of the Islamic religious institutions in furthering terrorism. Part IV gives you the full story of Islamic infiltration of U. S. law enforcement, particularly the FBI.
   
   The fifth Part provides some surprising information of Islamic infiltration of the U. S. military. Part VI details the infiltration of corporations. The last Part gives specific information about Islamic influence at the White House and the Department of Homeland "Insecurity".
   
   The book, of course, does not try to cover everything you need to know about the Islamic threat; and significantly, it does not attempt to provide any solutions or to tell you why the common-sense and obvious solutions that come to mind will not be adopted. The whole mind-set that forms the foundation for all these problems is not delved into. For a book that does go into this in great detail and also shows the other problems that are supporting this terrorist infiltration, see While America Sleeps: How Islam, Immigration and Indoctrination Are Destroying America From Within.



2. Excellent book that should be required reading for every American, especially those elected representatives in Washington who still believe that Islam is a religion of peace! Mr. President!!!!
   
   However, I would like to correct two inaccuracies in Mr. Sperry's book:
   
   1. On page 208 he states that, "Sgt Ali Mohamed joined the U.S. military and the next year, rising to the position of sergeant with the Army's Special Forces..."
   
   2. On page 209 he states that, " The Green Beret now sits in prison."
   
   To set the record straight, Ali Mohamed was not a Special Forces Green Beret! Ali Mohamed was assigned to a Special Forces unit and served as a "supply clerk" (and later as an instructor) in a support capacity only.
   
   In order to qualify as a Special Forces Green Beret (to wear the Special Forces shoulder Tab), one must successfully complete a regiment of required Special Forces training leading up to and including the Special Forces Qualification Course (Q-Course). Ali Mohamed never received any such training and never attended or graduated from the Special Forces Q-Course. Moreover, upon completion of the Q-Course, a Special Forces soldier is awarded a Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) identifier of 18 Series (e.g. 18A, 18E, 18D, 18C, 18B) and authorized to wear the SF Shoulder Tab. Special Forces Warrant Officers hold the MOS of 180A.
   
   Ali Mohamed never had any SF training, did not attend the Q-Course, was not awarded an 18 Series MOS, and was not authorized to wear the SF Shoulder Tab. In short, he was NOT a Green Beret!
   
   This may seem like a small point, but I can assure you that to those who have earned the Green Beret it is not.
   
   Concerned



3. I lived in northern Virginia and everything Paul Sperry says is the truth. This book is a wake up call for all Americans.When the world trade center was attacked Muslems in the nearby falls church area were heard cheering,this is a fact not fiction.Anyone that is so stupid to believe that Mr Sperry is a racist is in my opinion an idiot.I worked in falls church and believe me the infiltration is a terrorist success story. As Americans we need to realize this threat is real.They are very patient and we are not.I will personally make this book available to everyone I know.



4. If you believe the 'official' version of events,if your a racist,hatefilled idiot,this book is for you. Muslims are the newest of America's "boogeymen". I do not reccommend this 'book' for anyone with a functioning brain.



5. I was aware of the problems Europe is having integrating Muslim immigrants and the rapidly changing demographics. But until this book, I did not fully grasp the failure of the US Government to confront the problem of integrating a rapidly growing immigrant Muslim Theocracy into a democratic society. The book was well researched and leaves the reader with a grave concern for the future of our children. The author has made the case that our political leadership is failing the American people. I found Chapter 5, The Top Ten Myths of Islam profound. These myths are not understood by a public who seems more prone to trust the politically correct rhetoric espoused by politicians courting votes. It's a pity this threat is not discussed by those running for office. One can only wonder if our leaders have any knowledge of Islam and its tenants. The author has persuasively articulated that our leadership believes political correctness outweighs Islamic intolerance and the danger it presents to society. Sadly, it will take another catastrophe before we are able to fully unleash our law enforcement and intelligence resources to confront not a war on terror but Islamic extremism.

5 comments about Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror.

1. Richard Clarke's account on how Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. dealt with terrorism. Honest, insightful and non-partisan.



2. People can say what they want about Scott McClellan, but there is no comparison as to the character differences between these individuals. Whereas Scott had no courage to do what he is now doing, Dick Clarke, here, had all the gull to infight with some of these individuals and let his discontent be known right off. Of course his book did come out a little over a year later, but that is still much more than most "tell-all's".
   
   Now, there can be no doubt that some of this was done out of saving his own arse, it still has to be said that he DID do what he was supposed to. He informed, time and again, and was treated as if he weren't there. Richard's job was to analyze, then inform. He did that. The president ignored what was given to him. It was then astonishing to learn that the new "goal-post" for where the buck stops, was, suddenly, not with the president, but with others.
   
   A sad-but-true tail, indeed.
   
   This is a necessary book. Thanks, Dick.



3. After more than 1,000 reviews, what can I possibly add? I noticed one little thing, a very small point, in the book that kind of twisted my jaw.
   
   Clarke is very clearly partisan in tone in the book. I think he comes across as being in the leftist/liberal mold politically. OK, that's fine, sometimes the libs get it right and sometimes the conservatives do. (Myself, I have no love or loyalty to either political party and prefer to endorse viewpoints that represent ordinary, self-supporting, responsible, hard-working people, as I think the majority of us are. Frankly, anymore, I think people who obey the law, work to support themselves and their families, pay their bills, try to teach their kids right from wrong, etc. are the most underrepresented and disenfranchised bunch in the country. Neither party represents us, in my view.)
   
   With that out of the way, the little point I caught in this book refers to Clarke being advised by the U.S. Secret Service that he needed to carry a handgun for self-protection. He describes being "issued" a semi-automatic pistol for this purpose. He mentions something to the effect that he is a big supporter of gun-control, but in this case he felt he should carry this weapon.
   
   Well, I'm glad he was issued this pistol and carried it. The underlying tone in his comment is that the rest of us really shouldn't have handguns, because guns are bad, kill people, etc. But of course, HE needed one for self-protection; so what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. If he was true to his liberal view of the right/need of a handgun for self-protection as it applies to citizens, he should have been abhorred at the thought of a civilian carrying a weapon for protection and vigorously declined this advice--after all, he was not a law enforcement officer! (For what it's worth, I have been a federal law enforcement officer required to carry a firearm etc. so I have some sense of this.)
   
   I admit I have figuratively expressed his views, he did not use verbatim the words I have used above. If you read this passage though, it was relatively early in the book, I suppose somewhere in the first 1/4 of it, I think you will see what I mean.
   
   Does Clarke represent truthfully what really happened or does he have his own axe to grind? ONLY GOD KNOWS.
   
   I am writing this some 4 years after the book came out though I read it right after it was published. Subsequent events have left more data for people to digest about the truthfulness of the Bush administration. Still, I recommend people read the book to receive one view of events and judge for themselves.
   
   I see also now that Clarke has come out with a new book in the last couple of weeks. That should be an interesting read as well.
   
   Thanks for listening.



4. Rather interesting book by an counter-terrorist insider to several administrations. Clearly, he doesn't like Bush and his court very much, so it seems a wee bit partial. However, there is also some real insight about what it means to be tasked with keeping a democracy safe in the face of terror.
   
   You get the impression that he would have liked a more nuanced, more cooperative and diplomatic approach to neutralizing international terrorists. In fact, he compares Bush senior's handling of the diplomatic runup to Gulf War I with GW's go-it-alone policy in 2003.
   
   Nevertheless, no peacenik he. He strongly regrets having released the noose around the Republican Guards armor in 1991, in what people usually refer to as the Highway of Death. To him: escaping armor => Saddam stays in power and threatens neighborhood => US stays in Saudi => propaganda for Bin Laden's jihad. Mind you, as ugly as the Highway of Death was, Iraqi soldiers, maybe those troops, were soon afterwards involved in savagely repressing the Shias.
   
   One annoyance is his heavy use of "I, I, I" and tendency to put himself forward at every turn. Though he also says several times that he, and his team, failed at preventing 9/11 and that they failed at protecting their country. No one else from this administration accepts blame or admits mistakes, so that's refreshing.
   
   Concerning the pre-9/11 hunt for Al Quaeda, he often criticizes the CIA and the Pentagon, but just skewers the FBI and its director. Broadly speaking, he seems to sing the same tune as Ghost Wars, except that he thinks the CIA had unequivocal backing to kill Bin Laden and wasn't justified in hiding behind legal fig leaves.



5. As targets of the political mass suggestion discussed in my reviews of: Propaganda, U.S. Television News and Cold War Propaganda, 1947-1960 (Cambridge Studies in the History of Mass Communication), and Dictators, Democracy, and American Public Culture: Envisioning the Totalitarian Enemy, 1920s-1950s, we must be careful with books like this from an "insider". The pattern is the same on all these books "written" by insiders who have "left" the administration: There is one and ONLY one controversial assertion given in the book (the hook to generate sales and publicity), with the remainder of the book running parallel with the party line.
   
   I have no doubt, given corroborating evidence from other authors, that Clarke is correct that Bush and his cabinent were planning an Iraq invasion well before 9/11. The "Downing Street Memo" is the smoking gun on this.
   
   The much bigger purpose of this book, in my opinion, is simply to disseminate the party line, yet again, that Osama bin Laden is the boogeyman, that his world-threatening military is al-qaeda, and that they can deliver mass destruction anytime, anywhere (you know, the Cold War program). It's the repeat, repeat, repeat that we get from George Tenet, Michael Scherer (sp) and all others who are wittingly or unwittingly part of the propaganda campaign.
   
   The only question on Clarke is: is he witting or unwitting? The answer, however, is moot. As long as he is spewing party-line propaganda, his books are worthless to a suspicious public.

5 comments about One Tuesday Morning (September 11 Series #1).

1. This is the first book I ever read by Karen Kingsbury. Actually, it was the cover that caught my eye but even as I gazed at the picture of the twin towers, I thought to myself, "I....don't know about reading something on this order." I am SO glad I took the plunge because I found out well-written Christian Fiction is the best! Here's a tip. Make sure you have "Beyond Tuesday Morning" waiting in the wings for you'll kick yourself if you don't.
   
   I am now an avid reader of Ms. Kingsbury's work and have a whole shelf dedicated just to her in my own personal library. All I have to do is see her name on a book and it's mine. It is so great to be able to say that about an author, isn't it?
   
   "Oceans Apart" and the "Redemption" series would be my next recommendations to a new Kingsbury fan.
   
   PS I GAVE THIS BOOK 5 STARS BUT THE COUNTER SLIPPED AND I COULD NOT EDIT IT! WHAT A BUMMER.



2. Excellent 10 out of 10! This author is fabulous! I have read many of her books and have not read 1 I did not like.



3. Kingsbury handles a very difficult story line with grace, offering testimony of God's amazing love even through horrible times. The author says the story was given to her during the 911 attacks, and this book will help us all heal. Difficult to put down, this beautiful story lifts spirits out of the ashes of that dreadful day and its aftermath and into hope for times to come.



4. I couldn't put this book down and I have two small children to care for! I was able to stop only towards the end because I was crying so hard and couldn't see the pages. After a short break, I went back to it. The book showed how one person's life can have a huge impact on other people. It was inspiring!



5. I love Karen Kingsbury and I enjoyed this book. It's not one of her best, but it is a great story. I have to say I had the ending figured out about half way through, but I was still interested enough to finish the book. Kingsbury did a great job of bringing the day of September 11th back to life. Everyone has a different story about that day and I think we can all relate to the pain and fear that you feel reading this story.

5 comments about The Bloody Shirt: Terror After Appomattox.

1. The North won the Civil War in 1865. The South suffered a military defeat and was about to suffer a political defeat at the national level. Under Reconstruction the South's pre-war leaders were swept from office when the majority of whites lost their vote and Freeman were given the vote. During this time, Southern states elected Republicans at both the state and national level. White voters were subject to a variety of restrictions and loyalty oaths while Congress and the President fought over how Reconstruction would proceed. During this time, the Solid South comes into being with a way of looking at the war, the North and race relations set in stone. We are still dealing with the results of these years and may deal with them for another hundred years or more.
   Depending on your outlook, this book is about the overthrow of the legal government in Mississippi and South Carolina or how white Southerners reclaimed the political life of their states. The author's position is that terror overthrew the legal governments. This book documents the removal of Adelbert Ames, former Union General, from the governor's office in of Mississippi. Other Northerners who settled in the state, after the war, and the enfranchised Freemen, elected Ames. All of the Northerners are forced to flee when local whites rise in rebellion and the U.S. Government refuses to station sufficient troops to control the population. In South Carolina, the Freeman controlled town of Hamburg is destroyed during a nightlong battle with multiple deaths.
   This is a book on violence and the politics of terror that sides with the Reconstruction governments. The white locals consider this a government of occupation and rise up to destroy its' supporters and overthrow the government by driving the Northerners out of the state. The book focuses on the mob's racism and how much they hate a government comprised of Northerners and Negros. The book says nothing about why Southern whites might feel this way or why Washington failed to support these governments. This book, like many published lately, blames the failure of Reconstruction on the White South and fails to ask if the "goals" of reconstruction were possible or even wanted.
   This is a very readable account of the end of reconstruction governments in two Southern states as the 1870s ended. It is an honest unvarnished account and well worth reading.



2. My hat goes off to Mr. Budiansky for writing a sad and harrowing tale of terrorism on America's home front immediately following the Civil War. This book holds your attention throughout retelling the stories of a few of the people, black and white, who tried to create a new society in the old Confederacy. To say they were tilting at windmills is to put it mildly. Those of you who have read Eric Foner's dry tome about Reconstruction will find this book a perfect supplement. Unfortunately, Professor Foner I feel failed to get across to the reader the absolute violence and terror of the times. This book sadly remedies that oversight. Mr. Budiansky is correct in saying this era of US history is one of the few left where so little has been written about. I urge all graduate students in US history to make Reconstruction their concentration. The voices of tens of thousands of freedmen, as well as Republican carpetbaggers are crying to be heard.



3. Stephen Budiansky has written a popular history of the Reconstruction era. His is no easy task, as Reconstruction falls far behind the Civil War as a subject of popular interest, despite their closeness on the historical timeline, and despite the fact that many of the Civil War's main players (such as James Longstreet, who's featured here) were very active in both. "The Bloody Shirt" is a well-researched and well-written account that focuses on several individuals and events rather than try to examine the period as a whole. The author explores Reconstruction in Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina--the Deep South states that were the heart of the large plantation economy.
   
   The main problem I had with the book was its emphasis on description rather than analysis. It reads like dispatches from the Reconstruction "front." That's fine, to a point, but at times it is more a string of primary sources than a monograph. Very often, letters and newspaper editorials, frequently printed whole, are left to speak for themselves. Much of this information could've been boiled down--and more importantly, should've been commented upon. For example, at one point, one Southern newspaper makes reference to "Colfax." Those familiar with the Reconstruction period will know this means the "Colfax Massacre" of 1873, which happened in Louisiana (if one wants to read about that, he/she can read the recent book "Redemption" by Nicholas Lemann).
   
   Most importantly, the book lacks sufficient political context. The last portions of the book deal with the infamous Hamburg massacre (or, as Democrats fashioned it, the Hamburg "riot") in South Carolina. Budiansky unfortunately, doesn't give us much context about Reconstruction politics in that state. Despite the violence there, it was one of the last Reconstruction governments to fall and was the only one to have a mostly black legislature. The Republicans survived in South Carolina largely because of the state's majority black population. Budiansky doesn't lay this out, and makes it seem as if African Americans were merely victims of some last-minute white terror. By that point, however, Reconstruction had failed, and it was not because of events in South Carolina alone.
   
   The extent to which Democrats resorted to violence and fraud was inexcusable, but Budiansky doesn't examine some of the faults of the Reconstruction governments. Republican mismanagement and corruption enabled Democrats to build their case for overthrowing Republican rule (on this subject, check out Thomas Holt's "Black Over White" about the Reconstruction government in South Carolina). As overstated or even outright false as many Democrats' claims were, there was mismangement and corruption among Republicans. That does not justify the Democratic backlash, but even the Republican governments' legitimate expenses--for things as seemingly basic as public education and infrastructure projects--were hotly debated by Southerners.
   
   Nevertheless, Budiansky is correct in saying that the real cause for overthrowing Reconstruction was not fiscal conservatism--which he addresses in the case of the Republican Governor Ames of Mississippi--but white anger with "Negro rule." And he is also correct in showing that African Americans were eventually abandoned by Northerners who had grown tired with events in the South. Once the Federal government decided blacks weren't worth defending, the radical Republican governments could not succeed.
   
   If Budiansky's sympathies are with the right people, another problem I had with the book was its fragmented nature. As soon as we are introduced to some figures and events in Reconstruction, we are whisked away to somewhere else. The passages about James Longstreet are well written, but Longstreet feels dropped in from nowhere. No sooner does he appear then he is gone.
   
   In sum, Budiansky's description of the violence of the period is well done, and he certainly is passionate in his defense of the white-black coalition governments. This is a good place to start for someone who is not well versed in the Reconstruction period. If I were to suggest an academic book about terror after Lee's surrender, I would suggest Richard Zuczek's "State of Rebellion," about Reconstruction in South Carolina. As a work of popular history, Budiansky's book illustrates some of the features of Reconstruction, but it doesn't break any new ground in the field of study. And those looking for a more comprehensive study might want to check out Eric Foner's "Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution."



4. This account of some of the worst atrocities perpetrated on free negros and their white allies in the decade following the Civil War by Klansman and their kinsmen brings to mind the difficulties the USA has now in occupying Iraq. If the majority culture in the land being occupied is willing to kill to keep its power, the occupier is doomed to eventual defeat. You just can't kill every mayor, shopkeeper and farmer in the land you want to "reform", and in the American South after 1865, that's what it would have taken for the Yankees to prevail in the "peace." The KKK justified its terrorism via The Bible, and their traditional culture, and stalled off racial Democracy in their states for an additional century. When their leaders told lies, even obvious ones, their people supported them because they did not want to give up their former privileges and powers. "We lost the uniformed war, but we don't have to lose the political war" seemed to be the slogan of the hour. This is worth reading if you have an interest in the Reconstruction, or if you want to understand better the hardships our troops and our diplomats face in the Middle East.



5. This is a most interesting book about the period of reconstruction. The carpetbaggers did not make this process any easier for our Nation that had been torn apart. Race was a problem before the war, during the war, during reconstruction, and it is today. The war was over but the hate was still there. There were four years of the bloodiest war we have ever experienced. Families had been split apart, neighbors, states, and a nation. The Mason and Dixon line was still drawn. With reconstruction came the terror that resulted in hangings and political turmoil. Lincoln's untimely death was part of the terrorism that flooded the South. By Ruth Thompson author of "Natchez Above The River" and " The Bluegrass Dream"
   
   Writing as a Small BusinessQualifying Laps: A Brewster County NovelSins of the Fathers: A Brewster County NovelTravelersNatchez Above The River: A Family's Survival In The Civil WarThe Bluegrass Dream: A Wilderness Adventure of Early Settlers

5 comments about Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror.

1. This book is an education for everyone about the situation in the Middle East. It's a sobering picture of that area. Kudos for the author for her bravery in rejecting the Muslim party line. Her solutions for the problems there are - peace, not war - love not hate. God bless her.



2. This book is so important in our understanding of how the radical terrorists operate.Not all Muslims are terrorists and most peace loving Muslims, Buddists, Jews and Christians can't get thier heads around this type of political madness.



3. Nonie Darwish tells it like it is...her story is amazing and I applaud her courage and strength for telling it.
   
   As an American living in Iran for three and a half years leading up to the Iranian Revolution of 1978, I witnessed firsthand some of the frightening and unstable mindsets of those obsessed with jihad. I totally related to her story, especially the part when she returned to Egypt for a visit after 20 years. Because then she was seeing her country through the eyes of an American.



4. This is a book that every thinking American should read! Its insight into the Muslin world and the Muslims' way of thinking is imperative to our understanding of why we are having so much trouble trying to impose our standards on them. They are taught hatred of Americans from birth -- how can we hope to change that? If you want to improve your insight into the present conflict in Iraq and understand the problems there, you MUST read this book!



5. In this book, Nonie Darwish traces her life from a childhood spent as the daughter of a Muslim shahid in Egypt to her adult life as a conservative Christian in the United States. This amazing transformation took place because of her insight into the hatred preached by Muslims whose goal in life was to eradicate Israel and the United States. Instead she sought freedom and security in America, a country she has come to love and admire. She shows the Arab culture from the inside and she describes the inhumane treatment of people, especially women, who are under sharia law.
   She explains how Muslim customs dehumanize people and cause a breakdown in the family and in society. She feels that her purpose in life is to warn Americans about the dangers of Islam and the true intentions of a culture that is, even now, working its way into America via immigration and influencing our citizens, especially on college campuses. This is an eye-opening book and should be required reading for Americans.

No comments about Epicenter Study Guide.