No comments about Mayor Helen Boosalis: My Mother's Life in Politics.

No comments about Tito (Life & Times).

5 comments about Deadly Deceits: My 25 Years in the CIA.

1. I purchased this book because I wanted a better understanding of the purpose, and the core workings of the CIA; what made them tick, the mentality of the agency and its people. I came wanting to hear more of an insider's take on various missions.
   
   Seems like the author looked for the same kind of excitement and intrigue in his job that I was looking for in the book. The details of his lack luster paper pushing career was too much for me to bear. I felt as if I had to force myself through the book. It was just so dry, with many missing links. The book really didn't tell me much of anything I hadn't already known. I really didn't have to know about his filing routine. It didn't add to the main premise. I didn't want to know about Chinese names, or about the rice patties around his house. When he was put on another mission I had high hopes that now the book would move into high gear and I would finally be able to get glued to the pages, yet another and another disappointment.
   
   Through out 90% of the book I didn't get the feeling he had a problem with the CIA. Where were all of the deadly deceits? He said " despite my boss's early warnings, the duties on Taiwan seemed more directed at having a good time than at productive work. When we were not throwing a party for our counterpart Chinese officials, they were having us to sumptuous multi course banquets. ..." What does this have to do with "deadly deceits?" It was unbelievable that in 25 years of work, there would be enough space for the above quote. If he painted a particular picture why couldn't he build on it? Why couldn't one think link to another?
   
   Towards the end of the book (page 184, ~10 pages from the end) finally Mr. Mcgehee lets the readers in on his revelations about the CIA, surprisingly from news articles he read in the mainstream media! Why did he wait so late to discuss this?



2. This is another book by an ex-CIA agent which is full of disgust with the incompetence, bureaucracy, infighting for career reasons and opportunism of the Agency.
   It was partly censured by the CIA, but it is nevertheless very revealing.
   It shows how CIA agents concealed the truth by dispatching false reports and how they created their own reality, for the sole reason of saving their jobs. The end (jobs) justified all means.

   The author didn't have the same high level duties as e.g. Joseph B. Smith (Portrait of a Cold Warrior). He was more an executive field worker and that mostly in Vietnam and Thailand.
   His report contains however very interesting information about, among other things, the hiring procedures of the Agency, the terrible fate of the Hmong tribe in Laos or the training of Tibetan guerrillas for an invasion of Mao's China.

   His conclusion is deadly: If the Agency reported the truth about the Third World, it would say that the US installs foreign leaders, arms their armies and empowers their police, all to help those leaders repress, kill, torture and impoverish an angry, defiant people in order to maintain their position of privilege.'

   McGehee gives us an incisive view of the dark and murky ploys of a governmental institution.

   Not to be missed.




3. Ralph W. McGehee spent 25 years in the CIA; he joined as an idealist, and left as a cynic. The crisis happened in Dec 1968. RWM wondered why we had to bomb the people we were trying to save? Why did the CIA report lies instead of the truth? He thought of his earlier work in Thailand, where his reports were first accepted, then denied in spite of his accuracy. The Agency preferred the old methods that resulted in more killings. RWM decided then to tell what he found out and warn the American people. The CIA is the covert action arm of the Presidency. It is not an intelligence agency because it only seeks the information that supports existing policies. Its propaganda uses disinformation to fool the US public, and justify policies by distorting reality.

   RWM was class president and in the honor society, and All State as a football tackler. An ardent Baptist, he went to Notre Dame and played on an undefeated football team that won national championships; he graduated cum laude. A telegram recruited him to fight communism and save our way of life. RWM went to Washington and passed the tests. The chapters in the book tell about his career in the agency. Chapter 5 tells of his "Life at Langley" when he returned to Headquarters. His knowledge of the Bay of Pigs came from television news. It seemed they relied too much on an assumed uprising of the Cuban people. Could such a mistake ever happen again? Pages 57-8 tells how the CIA promoted a bloody extermination campaign in Indonesia. (Read L Fletcher Prouty's book on this.) Page 59 tells of agency coups in South America. American training of the military and police created traitors who overthrew their governments; was this the definition of subversion?

   Page 61 quotes Howard Hunt on gathering "any and all information" on Presidential candidate Goldwater for delivery to the White House. Page 63 tells of the CIA's insertion of individuals into dissident circles in order to establish their credential for foreign operations. (Could this explain W J Clinton's success?) Page 64 tells how RWM was transferred to Thailand, and page 80 tells of the sad results. Pages 111-6 tells of his successful survey of Thailand. This "good news" resulted in his quick removal! Years later the truth dawned on him: the CIA didn't want the truth! This tells of the management trick of offering a transfer to a better job, then eliminating the job after the employee transfers. RWM became another paper pusher. Page 120 shows the bureaucratic faults of the CIA. Page 128 tells of the fatal flaws of our presence in Vietnam. Pages 129-135 gives Vietnamese history in a nutshell. Page 146 summarizes the problem: how was it that one junior officer was better informed and had a clearer picture of the reality out there than all the rest of the Agency? Is this unique to a government agency? The bottom of page 159 tells of the results of his experiences. Chapter 14 concludes and summarizes this book.

   The Appendix is the last part, but you should read it first to understand the writing of this book. His secrecy agreement let the CIA review and censor any information that they did not want revealed. When his writing was censored, he was allowed to substitute information from open sources. (See page 35 in Chapter 3 on the use of agents.) When RWM found a published book with the same opinions he was then allowed his critical comments. The CIA's secrecy agreement stops critics from explaining their actions to the American people.




4. Interesting book. i was half expecting something like in the more subdued spy movies, but McGehee is a very average, unremarkable person who was a paper pusher in the CIA

   This book is a pretty detailed biography of McGehee's work at the CIA. i'm guessing that he was like the majority of CIA operatives, which is to say, he was a guy in the trenches with no special knowledge of the big picture and not a guy with any authority to change anything. He worked both in the field (primarily Asia during that whole Vietnam thing) collecting information and in the home office sorting paper. He devotes a lot of time to one of his biggest accomplishments, which was sorting index cards in a file cabinet

   After reading the book, what i walked away with was that a)the CIA is really just a big, uninteresting, political, short-sighted, every-day bueracracy and b)that the managers at the top of this bueracracy just make up stuff and don't care about what their experts in the field say. Basically, the CIA is run like any large, terrible company

   i thought this book would have a list of major crimes - assasinations, drug running, torture, political intrigue, coups and all that sort of stuff. In the non-crime category, i thought there'd be a lot of spying and covert activities. But there was practically none of that. Instead, he and his CIA buddies toured the country side, conducted surveys, established relations with remote hill tribes, paid informants for information, read reports and wrote reports. It's just so, what's the word, realistic

   OK, so this book would make a lousy action movie. There's nothing exciting here. Even so, the book makes several very good criticisms of the CIA. Nothing criminal and whistle blowing. It's more like an in-the-trenches or middle manager corporate employee complaining about all the little things a bueracratic company and buerecratic managers do that, added together, make the company ineffective. i think McGehee's main point is that the CIA just plain doesn't work. Not necessarily that it does evil things, although he admits that the covert ops arm (which he wasn't part of) does horrible criminal things, but that it completely fails in its stated mission of collecting and understanding information

   i don't think i'd recommend this book to fans of conspiracies and spy novels, but i'd definitely recommend it to people interested in management theory, organizational psychology and US intellectual capabilities




5. Ralph McGehee's book serves as an eye-opening glimpse into our nation's CIA history. From his beginning as a "gung-ho" patriot until his growing disillusionment with the Agency, leading to retirement, McGehee reveals the truth behind the many of the CIA's operations, not only domestically and in well-known regions of the world, but also within areas quite unaddressed by the common American. His revelations about the Agency were somewhat shocking to a naturally pessimistic person as myself. However, I found this book very helpful especially in my position as a student who's life began after much of the book's coverage occured, because it reawakened me to the dishonesty and means the CIA employs in order to acheive its goals not only in important past events, but even up to the present.

5 comments about Strictly Right: William F. Buckley Jr. and the American Conservative Movement.

1. William F. Buckley Jr. is here and there in "Strictly Right." Beginning with what its dust jacket promises ("an affectionate portrait") the book, halfway through, first sheds fresh or exclusive information, then primary sources, then any coherent narrative on Buckley altogether -- ending in weirdly detached conjecture by authors whose orbit from the founder of National Review and patron of modern rightism was close, but not that close.
   
   The drift would be OK if "the American Conservative Movement" were more than a subtitle. As the book progresses, biography is substituted by generic history, borrowed-interest anecdotes, and brittle gossip. The worst offense comes when the authors -- who apparently personally dislike Alfonse D'Amato -- take an opportunity to denigrate the former senator as they recount editorial lunches. Fair enough if they don't care for Al. But where does Buckley figure on that page? He is . . . referenced.
   
   "Strictly Right" is an unsuccessful try at a difficult task. There's a characteristic noted by most who have written about Buckley, which is that Buckley was by all appearances hardworking, focused, private, and a little impersonal. He inclined not to biography but bibliography: fiction; nonfiction; commentary, in print and on television. Even in writing his many, touching eulogies, Buckley focused on the subject rather than on himself. Faced with that kind of reticence, biographers have had to search; or like these authors, really strain.
   
   For those who wish to know the man, you can find William F. Buckley Jr. in the work of William F. Buckley Jr. At the very least you won't find him in this book.



2. Linda Bridges gives us the background on how Buckley and his magazine helped transform the American political landscape. In witty fashion shows how this individual could help save the world while having a lot of fun on the way. Young people may not realize how lonely and beleaguered conservatives felt forty and fifty years ago. Those were heady times for young conservatives as well as the rabble-rousers of the New Left. People took ideas more seriously back then, too, not just the slogans and PR cliches that are our diet today.
   
   Janis Starcs



3. I was very excited to read this book. In fact, I asked for it as a present. I have been following WFB since I was a teenager and couldn't wait to get a full picture of his professional life and his role within conservatism and the Republican Party.
   
   Unfortunately, this is not the book for that.
   
   The book is written from an insider's perspective, but a completely uncritical, cloying one. There is more time spent of social details about NR parties and what type of hostess and decorator Buckley's wife was than on editorial debates and business decisions. I was dumbfounded to have to wade through minute details of who skied with who and which daughter of this important person used to ride horses with this other important person when they were young. You will learn nothing about Firing Line, but a great deal about chateaus by the time you're finished. As another reviewer mentioned, it's also surprising how much space is given to each Buckley novel, including excerpts.
   
   The authors, who were both involved in NR and Republican politics, can't resist being a substantial part of the story, turning it into more of a memoir of their experiences than a true account of Buckley's life and impact. You'll wonder throughout why so much time is spent on Spiro Agnew, who one of the authors worked for. Additionally, they reference themselves throughout with the odd device "one of the present authors" such as "one of the present authors recalls". You'll also find pages of shallow American history, such as a retelling of Vietnam.
   
   Again, I truly wanted to love this book. I hesitate to write such a negative review, but I really feel like you should have a better idea of what to expect. For people who were supposedly such insiders, I don't know that you will gain any actual insight into WFB or learn new details that have not been made public elsewhere. It reads more like a scrapbook for former employees of NR, with an emphasis on staff personalities and health problems, the social calendar and the authors' own experience.



4. I was quite disappointed. From its title I was expecting more details about Buckley's influence on the movement but instead there were tidbits with filler about his novels, his ski trips, and his sailing. Those details would have been important in a WFB bio. A reader curious about Buckley's influence on the movement would have instead been looking for what was not found in the book, which is more details about his conflict with the Birchers and the Randians, perhaps his differences with libertarians over immigration, with social conservatives over drug policy. I am hopeful that Hart's book will have more meat to it than the present study.



5. There have been a number of books published in the last few years tracking the influence of "National Review" on the rise of the American conservative movement. And while all have their merits (at least, the two or three I've read so far all do), this was the most entertaining of the three. That's because in addition to being a history of "Buckleyite" or "National Review conservatism," so-called, it's also -- as the blurb on the back cover says -- "an affectionate portrait of the man who started it all."
   
   The authors are long-time NR writers and editors and close associates of WFB, and so they don't claim to have produced a work with the olympian distance and objectivity (real or feigned) modern historiography seems to require. "Strictly Right" is a candid, relaxed, and very personal look at a man, a magazine, a movement, and the close ties between the three.
   
   Fans of the man and the mag will certainly enjoy the authors' storytelling abilities and their recounting of interesting and half-forgotten episodes. Readers interested in the history of this form of conservatism would, I think, do well to pair this book with Jeff Hart's "The Making of the American Conservative Mind: National Review and Its Times" (2005) which, I think, does a better job placing NR in historical and political context (Bridges and Coyne cite "The Making..." in their bibliography). Hart is another NR insider, of course, and so his book too is fundamentally sympathetic to the people and ideas discussed. He, however, has a jaded view of the magazine's relevance to modern conservatism that -- at least to judge by this book -- Bridges and Coyne do not share.
   
   From uniting selected strands of the Old Right in the 1950s to charting a course between neocons and paleocons today (the authors devote several pages to David Frum's 2003 NR ukase "Unpatriotic Conservatives," which read people like, well, me, out of conservatism ... at least as David Frum defines it), Bridges and Coyne do a fair job showing how NR has shaped how "conservatism" has been defined and understood on the American political spectrum.
   
   When you get right down to it, though, this is a book about William F. Buckley, Jr. And in the absence of any full biography of the man since John B. Judis' "William F. Buckley, Jr.: Patron Saint of the Conservatives" in 1988, it's about the best look we've yet had at the man who can justly claim to have had as much influence as anyone on the political and cultural direction of America in the second half of the 20th century. The admiring tone of this book may put off readers not already sympathetic to man and cause, and certainly points out the need for a more scholarly volume or two on the subject. But conservatives and even libertarians -- particularly the young conservatives Hart argues are disconnected from their historical and philosophical roots -- should find much in these pages to appreciate and enjoy.

5 comments about Jefferson's Vendetta: The Pursuit of Aaron Burr and the Judiciary.

1. I've often come upon Burr's escapade in reading U.S. history, but I was never able to get a clear picture of what happened. This book is well researched and gives the details of what went on and the trial that resulted from Burr's adventure.
   
   The one question that "Vendetta" doesn't answer is why did Jefferson and Hamilton hate Burr with such a passion? Burr's character comes off as complex and not as crazy as history has made him out to be. Wheelan is obviously in Burr's corner and wants to present a more positive picture of him than historians have previously given him.
   
   If you want to dig deeper into American history then "Vendetta" is an excellent choice for you. Wheelan gives the reader more "color" of the day and keen insight into the way that our society thought at the time.



2. This is a part of history I had not studied before, and the same story is told in the earlier "The Jefferson Conspiracies" which continues on with the death of Meriwether Lewis and the rest of the career of General Wilkinson the really corrupt and treasonous person in both books. Both books are very readable, I found some of the points more clear in the other book. Both books feel Wilkinson betrayed Burr to hide his own involvement and would have killed him rather than see him go to trial. The second book speculates the same may have happened to Lewis as he was traveling East because he felt he was being framed in the same manner as Burr (thou in this case apparently competely innocent), and Wilkinson may have thought he was also going to provide evidence of his corrupt land deals.
   
   This book tries to portray Burr as an innocent, which is hard to believe. While it is clear with just 50 men on there way to live on land owned by Burr , no treasous armed uprising against the US or Spain had yet occurred, (rather than the thousands of armed men approaching New Orleans that Wilkinson claimed). But it seemed that both Wilkinson and Burr solicited British and others for help with attacking Spain with Burr to be King (not President) and perhaps to divide the western territory from the US so at least in todays standards treason had occurred. Back then the Federalist were considering withdrawing New England from the union as well and before it was made illegal (but only a high misdameanor) there were US forays into Spainish terrority Jefferson at least wanted Spain to worry about a rogue attack from the US,such thoughts were not unusual in those days.
   
   It is clear that Wilkinson was in Spain's payroll, and was traitous. Both books argue Jefferson shielded him by letting him have a phoney Court Marshall rather than an investigation by Congress. The one book claims it is to protect himself and his support of his star witness against Burr. The other for the national interest, from New England threatening to leave the Union and Britain invasion from Canada , the country could not stand for the distraction, plus Wilkinson's contacts with Spain made him useful with negotian about Florida and Mexico. He escaped conviction again in 1815, which even President Madison found troubling.



3. Every society has a moment in time where a decision affecting civil liberties has enormous repercussions. For example, laws giving the government power to curtail political assassinations were abused by Stalin and Hitler to consolidate their dictatorships. This book covers the issues and personalities involved in the courtroom battle over whether the United States would adopt the British doctrine of constructive treason in which merely thinking that it would be desirable to have the King killed would be sufficient grounds for capital punishment. Jefferson, who intensely disliked his former vice-president Burr, sought to press treason charges for an alleged plan to cause the western regions to sucede from the United States. Faced with shaky evidence, the prosecutors urged that the Constitution be interpreted to enable them to convict Burr on the basis of constructive treason. The book cogently describes the societal and personal issues at stake, and how Chief Justice Marshall navigated the intense political and judicial issues involved in the grand jury proceeding and trial. The author does an excellent job of setting the matter in its historical context and does so in a very readable style.



4. I don't know why Mr. Wheelan has such a sore spot about Jefferson. I would just warn readers that if you read this book, make sure you read many other historical books about these same characters. If you happen to read this book, and have not read other material about these characters, you will come away with a slanted view about Thomas Jefferson, and the other historical characters in this book. There are so many writers who, for reasons of profit or ideology, have taken upon themselves the job of rewriting history to their own liking, or that of their publisher. This book has several historical mistakes, but the overall tone reminds me of some of our current extremists who take a one sided view about many issues. Jefferson was a flawed human being, that is clear to anyone who reads history. But to paint him in this light is unfair. Burr, on the other hand, was not a nice guy. He was the kind of man Bush would have been if he had lived during that time. Power hungry, instigating failed military missions, and willing to kill to get his way. Yes, that is harsh, but painfully true. Be wary of revisionist history. I give this book four stars for its inventiveness; it does have some entertainment value. Wheelan writes well, but perhaps he should switch to fiction and stop trying to turn Jefferson into someone he was not. Thomas Jefferson was a man who would not tolerate tyrants and insisted on civil liberty. Not perfect, but not the character created in Mr. Wheelan's book.



5. In the early nineteenth century, former Vice-President Aaron Burr -- the recent killer of Alexander Hamilton in a duel -- was up to something. Maybe it was an attempt to conquer Spanish Mexico and set up an American empire. Perhaps it was a plot to separate the western territories (and Kentucky) from the rest of the Union. Maybe it was both. Maybe it was neither, Historians still debate the matter. But whatever it was, it ended up with Burr on trial for treason, with Chief Justice John Marshall presiding over the trial (and President Thomas Jefferson a behind-the-scenes prosecutor). Burr was eventually acqutted (probably more for lack of specific evidence and creditable witnesses -- Burr's co-conspirators did not inspire confidence in their own integrity) but it was an extraordinarily dramatic event in the early American Republic. Wheelan tells it story well, although he is clearly not sympathetic to Jefferson. I regret to say that Wheelan's accuracy is made suspect by errors he makes: in the space of four pages Wheelan writes that James Wilkinson (the comanding general of the US Army and secretly a paid Spanish agent and the chief Government witness against Aaron Burr) had in 1775 accompanied Benedict Arnold in his famous march across the Maine wilderness to attack Canada (Wilkinson had actually been among the reinforcements reaching Arnold the next year) and also that Westchester County is in Connecticut (a statement that would amaze thousands of New York State taxpayers). But, overall I found Wheelan's account to be a gripping narrative about both conspiracy and trial.

No comments about Nicolae Ceausescu - The Genius of the Carpathians (Biography).

5 comments about Rough Edges: My Unlikely Road from Welfare to Washington.

1. This book is a great, againt-all-odds story about a boy who could have taken a destructive path in his life under the most challenging circumstances but chose to turn his life around with sheer determination, persistence, and belief in himself. Rogan's life story is such a drama that has all the elements of the proverbial American Dream. At the end of the book, I still did not understand his switching to the Republican party and why he put himself in a position to damage the man who had been an important mentor and inspiration for him. Regardless, one cannot deny that Rogan is a man of integrity and should give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his political decisions. This book also demonstrates Rogan's razor-sharp wits honed by his tough upbringing that makes his story so readable and engaging. Reading this book was an emotional ride and a valuable educational experience. It's a must-read!



2. This is a fascinating book about an affable and intelligent man who overcame incredible odds. I tried to envision him as a bouncer on the Sunset Strip but could not. I've seen him speak and he was funny and witty, both traits sorely missing in our stiff Congress. Don't be surprised to see him back in action representing the OC in DC.



3. I lived across the hall from one of Rogan's "Mission buddies" for nearly a year in Culver City.
   I figure that the apple doesnt fall far from the tree.
   I dont claim to be squeaky clean or innocent by any stretch, but if it "takes one to know one" and Frank DeBrose is Rogan's lifelong friend, then it is a short hop to reality in realizing that this book is perhaps the largest steaming pile of parrot droppings mixed with creative BS ever to find its way to a printing press.
   
   Delightfully written?
   Yes.
   A grain of truth in the entire book...probably not.
   
   My suspicion is that Clinton or his staff might have had the goods on aspects of Rogan's life that Rogan preferred to keep from public view.
   If Rogan's private life is anything like Frank's, and I *suspect* it was, that would be sufficient motivation for his drive to impeach a sitting President.
   It would also shed a lot of light on what really lies beneath the slick facade of most "conservative" Republicans in this day and age.
   
   Perhaps it should be listed as a work of fiction.



4. On the whole, this was an awe-inspiring story, the type of rags to riches and pull yourself up by your bootstraps book that everybody can appreciate. Mr. Rogan spends far too long though discussing his bartending stories, and far too little time discussing the reasons I bought the book 1) To read more about his time in state government 2)to understand more compleatly the reasons when he became a Republican...his 'switch' was profound and I wanted to better understand how it came to happen and 3) more about his role in the impeachment hearings. On the plus side, the stories about how he became involved in politics and the people he met were frankly awe-inspiring. The world would be better served if more youngsters had a passion for politics like Rogan had. Solid beginning, okay middle, great close, gets this book a 4.



5. What an amazing life story! I read most of this book on a plane from Washington D.C. to LA. I was actually disappointed when the plane landed because I only had a few more chapters to go and I didn't want to stop reading.
   
   The author tells of his journey from the Mission District in San Francisco to halls of Congress. The book is surprisingly enjoyable considering that the author is a lawyer (and lawyers often write in a yawn inspiring manner). The passengers on my plane kept on turning around to look at me as I laughed out loud or stiffled tears. Republican or Democrat, young or old, rich or poor...you will enjoy this book!

4 comments about Red Spy Queen: A Biography of Elizabeth Bentley.

1. Once the depression struck many elitist students (such as Miss Bentley at Vassar) seemed to begin to feel guilty of their privileged position in society. For those who had not religious grounding this opened up the possibility for other faiths to explain the crisis of history that they perceived themselves to be living through. Paul Johnson, in his book "The Quest for God" makes the point that people long for a faith to believe in and when conventional religion fails to satisfy they seek a substitute. Environmentalism, nuclear dis-armament, anti-globalism and other such "movements" attract such folk. For Elizabeth Bentley it was fascism, then communism, that served this purpose. She associated herself with the CPUSA (Communist Party of the USA) and through this met Jacob Golos, a soviet agent. With this individual she became romantically involved, even though Golos had a wife back in the USSR. Eventually Golos gets caught in a passport fraud scheme which effectively blows his anonymity vis-a-vis the FBI, forcing him to utilize his mistress Bentley as a front. So she gets involved and covers Golos before the onset of the Nazi-Soviet pact which leads the FBI to begin paying more attention to communists within the USA. In time Golos gets ill and Bentley progressively takes on more responsibility, including running an underground network of Americans who were spying for Soviet intelligence. I don't want to detail the whole book so I'll just conclude by saying why Bentley was significant and why you ought to read this slim book. Elizabeth Bentley testified later that all communists were potential spies for the USSR. Communism wasn't just an intellectual proclivity ala liberalism or conservatism. She was the one who detailed how the head of the CPUSA, for instance, took direction straight from Moscow. The party's rank and file, moreover, was similarly loyal to the USSR, she testified. She was, in other words, the missing link connecting the CPUSA with the USSR and soviet intelligence. The fascinating part of this great story (well told by the book's author) is that her most damning accusations of espionage couldn't be proved by the FBI, as her contacts were all tipped off soon after she came "in from the cold", so to speak, once she turned herself in to American authorities. She had her sceptics. It just was hard to believe what she claimed could be true; that many senior American officials could be passing intelligence to the USSR. The US Army began to break some coded cables of the Soviets beginning in 1948 which confirmed Miss Bentley's accusations, but the public wasn't privy to this development, of course. Miss Bentley, consequently, continued to be portrayed as a crackpot by many in government and especially in the media. The fortunate appearance of Whittaker Chambers on the public scene, making similar accusations as Bentley...but eventually providing some proof to back it up, in the end, saved the day....and Miss Bentley's reputation. These individuals thus proved the case that the USSR was trying to undermine the USA even while we were allied to one another during WW2; that Stalin was gearing up for a cold war years before liberals accused FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower of choosing hostility over cooperation with the USSR. Read this book before Witness by Whittaker Chambers for a great 1-2 punch against political naivete. Thanks for reading my opinion.



2. Red Spy Queen: A Biography of Elizabeth Bentley
   By Kathryn S. Olmsted
   University of North Carolina Press, 2002

   Reviewed by Kenneth R. Kahn

   "Either the government attacks you or they put you on the payroll" Chris Warnock

   The long trail of bread crumbs leading to American communists acting as Soviet agents inside the U.S. government and the beginnings of the red scare in the 1950s leads to one woman--Elizabeth Bentley.

   Long before the revelations of the Venona cables, Elizabeth Bentley, variously described as a spinster, neurotic, alcoholic, sexual adventuress, communist spy and FBI informant, was transmitting secrets to the Soviet Union on everything imaginable.

   Elizabeth Bentley, born of New England parents, was a historic anomaly, a footnote in the history of the cold war and American communism. She brought her American character and applied it to her dealings with both Soviet agents and fellow American communists. She was one of those figures whose lifestyle intertwined with her actions and how she is portrayed by history is a direct result of this interaction.

   Bentley, having followed a long, tortured and circuitous route to the FBI's field office in New Haven, Connecticut in 1945, remade American politics and led to the exposure of the top communists in America.

   One of the primary themes, and intriguing concepts behind this book, is that it exposes a heretofore, seemingly unimportant person in early cold war history. Bentleyýs life and roller coaster like adventures stand in stark contrast to her personal appearance. Deemed by the press, ýthe blond spy queený she hardly seems to me a seductress. She seems a plain, ordinary woman by today's standards. Yet, her appearance and demeanor were pivotal to her story as a Soviet agent.

   Elizabeth told her story of communist espionage activity before various congressional committees and testified as a government witness in the Rosenberg case. She managed to talk "McCall's" magazine into serializing her autobiography titled, "Out of Bondage." At first, they were leery of the former communist turned FBI informant until they spoke to FBI P.R. man Lou Nichols who gave the Bureau's approval. Amongst the lies she purported to McCalls was her self-description characterized in the headline of the June 1951 installment, "I Joined the Red Underground with the Man I Loved." In the article, she described herself as an ingenuous "college girl" despite the fact she was thirty when she met him.
   
   In the curious case of Elizabeth Bentley, where twists and turns are the norm, as a government witness, Bentley had access to the protection of the government. In a little-known incident, the 20th century's prime mover and fixer, the infamous, gay, red-baiting Roy Cohn, came to her assistance after a beating by her live-in lover, John Wright. According to Olmsted, documented by Nicholas Von Hoffman in his seminal work, "Citizen Cohn" and an FBI memorandum dated May 13, 1952 contained in the FBI's file on Gregory Silvermaster, 65-14603-4417, Cohn told the FBI that Bentley's beating was, "the most serious problem he had faced since coming into the United States Attorney's office." As a chief witness in the William Remington case, the beating could, "ruin her career as a lecturer" (FBI memorandum from Agent Cleveland to SAC Alan Belmont, May 8, 1952, Bentley file, 134-135, no. serial), and could, "endanger the Brothman and Rosenberg convictions." The author writes, "Cohn told Elizabeth to entice Wright to New York under false pretenses. When he arrived, he was hit with the full force of the U.S. government. FBI agents whisked him to a meeting with two prosecutors and Special Agent John Danahy. U.S. Attorney Myles Lane told Wright "to get out of Bentley's life or else." He left Bentley alone.

   On May 29, 1952, Elizabeth appeared before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee investigating Owen Lattimore and the Institute of Pacific Relations. McCarthy accused Lattimore of being a "top Russian spy." The Institute of Pacific Relations was accused of front activities, particularly aiding and abetting the "fall" of China.

   As the anti-communist spotlight faded, so did Elizabeth's fortunes. In her later life, she taught classes at a reform school, publishing the school newspaper and avoiding the public spotlight. On November 18, 1963, at the age of fifty-five, she entered Grace New Haven Community Hospital. She was officially diagnosed with abdominal cancer but actually suffered from chronic alcoholism from years of self-abuse.

   "Red Spy Queen" is an interesting, sad, twisted tale of one woman's political journey from fascism to communism to anti-communism and the human toll of political activism. It is an excellent read, an important story of a sad footnote in the history of the early cold war and that uniquely American obsession---anti-communism.




3. I was amazed that this book would be such a delight to read. Initially, the historical research is well narrated, maintaining the suspense, danger, and the confusion behind the real life espionage of Elizabeth Bentley. Kathryn Olmsted displays an enjoyable interest in the vocabulary of the time, and is not shy to weave a moral into the story, as lasciviousness trumps cleverness. This book is a great resource on the fascinating history of the puzzle called the "Red Scare". As the Russians open their archives, the truth can be sought from a new light. Kathryn Olmsted pieces together Elizabeth Bentley's life, exaggerations, and manipulations in the sordid web of spies testifying against spies amidst political ambition and posturing of J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI. Honestly, I couldnt put the book down.



4. This is a well written and informative book on Elizabeth Bentley and the ex-communist witnesses of the Red Scare period of the 1940s (and 1950s). Based on a rather narrow base of primary sources, while Olmsted appears to believe most of Bentley's fingering of communists, spies or otherwise, there is much still problematic in her story. She does not make the case that the "spies" posed any real threat to the security and stability of the country in the 1930s or during World War II, although some certainly existed and shared information, nuclear and otherwise, with the Soviety Union. Olmsted describes a most unstable woman, whose veracity is certainly questionable. And she underscores that spying ended with Bentley's public revelations at the end of World War II, long before the "McCarthy" Red Scare period of the early 1950s, as other historians have recently argued.

5 comments about Bill and Hillary: The Marriage.

1. Contrary to what some have said here, this book is very well written. Perhaps, as some say, there is not alot that is new, but having it all compiled into one volume will be an eye-opener for most readers who may not have read some of these stories before. I found the information regarding the Hillary and Vince Foster love affair to be very well researched.



2. Basically a "tell more book" because everything in the book just reinforces the scandals we all heard about. There is lot of detail covering the escapades of Clinton, but most of everything had already surfaced.

   The marriage is a business partnership. Hillary needed Bill to get to the top (in the political world only) as she was her own smart person without him. He needed her, knew she was smarter and could help his career. They were a poor match for each other, so it was understandable that they have a "partnership marriage."

   Bill's family life is best described as "twisted family history" filled with violence, promiscuity, adultery, divorce, bigamy, poverty, illegitimacy, and plenty of addiction. Hillary's father is said to have run his family "like a drill sergeant mentality that extended to corporal punishment." Easy to see why Hillary was "devoted" to him and understandable as to how she could be so "cold blooded" and dispassionate about love and true marriage.

   Yes, Bill is and always has been a WHORNEY, pathetic soul who is addicted to sex! And Hillary has spent her life covering up or battling the press for him. I think Bill Clinton played with his own mind "trying to keep things from Hillary" but deep inside HE knew he could do whatever he wanted and she wasn't going to do a thing about it!

   I can't get over his "jogging" shenanigans: He pretends to go out for his jog, has the taxpayers' troopers drive and follow for a block or two, gets a quickie on the road or someone's house, then drives back to the mansion, huffs and puffs into the office/home as if he did a jog! He gives Joggers a bad name!

   Hillary and Bill - Quite a goonball pair! .......MzRizz




3. There has never been a marriage more controversial in the American public eye than this dynamic duo. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have been rumored to have questionable personal lives since Bill was the Arkansas governor. While this has certainly been proven true, "Bill and Hillary" acts in the same fashion as "Year of the Rat" by Triplett and Timperlake in that it pulls all the punches and makes connections and assumptions that are iffy at best. While there is no doubt both Bill and Hillary Clinton have been proven to be not- so- faithful to their wedding vows, the idea that Bill engaged in cocaine use and street- side sex with a prostitute could not be based on anything more than hearsay. The accusations are certainly interesting, but much of them seem to be no more than sleazy yellow journalism.



4. Christopher Anderson's "Bill and Hillary: The Marriage" provides the reader with an in-depth look at Clinton's and Rodham's pasts, how they came to know each other and how they have schemed together in their rise to power. Indeed, power has always been their ultimate aim. Rather than providing the reader with a psychological analysis of the complex partnership, Anderson aptly describes that power acquisition is the root of all that Clinton and Rodham do. It's what makes their partnership work.

   While Clinton's quest for power is reflected by his boyhood meeting with JFK, Rodham's is underscored by her post-law school ambitions. On page 100, Anderson explains Rodham's desire to effect social change at a loftier level, rather than by working at the grassroots levels where one is closest to those in need. "[O]rganizing the poor for community actions to improve their own lives may have short-term benefits for the poor but would never solve their major problems. You need much more than that. You need leadership programs, constitutional doctrines." Rodham also stated that "[t]he only way to make a real difference is to acquire power." Anyone who reads this tyrannical rant and thinks that Rodham will not be running for president in 2004 is grossly mistaken.

   Throughout the book, Anderson gives acute attention to Clinton's reckless and violent behavior with women. At times, I felt like I was reading some sort of hardcore porno novel. Strangely, Anderson writes that Rodham was shocked to learn that Clinton had been lying to her throughout 1998 about his affair with Lewinsky. While Anderson shows that Rodham knew much about Clinton's sexual recklessness, he insults the reader's intelligence by suggesting that she was truly shocked about Lewinsky. (I guess that tells us much about the level of intelligence of Clinton's cabinet, which publicly avowed a belief that he did not have "sexual relations" with Lewinsky). Nevertheless, the book reads well and gives a good foundation for why Clinton and Rodham are the way they are.




5. Bill and Hillary is an admixture of news stories and biographical bits assembled from other, long-published sources. The title tempts us because it suggests some insights into what must be a very interesting marriage indeed! If you have not read anything on the Clintons' personal lives, this would be a fair place to start. But if you have already surveyed the territory, you will find nothing new. Amazon sells another title, Hillary Clinton, The Inside Story, which is better at shining light on the motives of the parties in this strange marriage.

   All of the juicy, gossipy, behind the scenes stories are told without much of an offering of analysis. Even though analysis of someone's marriage from afar would be guess work at best, it would be interesting nevertheless.

   Another word of caution, if you are a certified Clinton hater, this will proably not feed your appetite. The writing is pretty level. There is more of a flavor of sadness and even sympathy than persecution.

3 comments about Patrick Pearse and the Politics of Redemption: The Mind of the Easter Rising, 1916.

1. I really enjoyed this book written by my ex-professor. This is a marvelous psychohistorical, highly engaging, and at times pleasantly shocking reading about one Patrick Pearse. Moran goes deeply into the Pearse's psyche and explores the possible reasons for Patrick's (i)-rational actions. Was he a suitable hero-figure or was he a man driven by circumstances, his perception of injustice, and his powerlessness.



2. Incredibly insightful treatment of the Easter Rising and the man who lead it. This book gives us a new way of seeing this great Irish hero and shows us an in-debt psychological study of what brought him to lead the rebelion. A marvelous book.



3. Incredibly insightful treatment of the Easter Rising and the man who lead it. This book gives us a new way of seeing this great Irish hero and shows us an in-debt psychological study of what lead him to lead the rebelion. A marvelous book.