5 comments about Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years and The War Years.

1. After searching for the quintessential Lincoln biography to read, as my introduction to studying this fascinating man, I settled on Sandberg. He was a great pleasure to spend several weeks with! Even though we know this book was completed in the 1930's it is so well written and held up by so many academics and scholars as quintessential. It is true masterpie. Many more, hundreds in fact, books have been published as biography since Sandberg but his alone provides the understanding and genesis of how Lincoln came to be Lincoln.
   America (2008) is searching for the next Lincoln: revered on the right and the left, revered in the center, revered on the political fringes, we need a leader, statesman, collaborator, bold leader today more then ever.



2. Sandburg took criticism for filling in some blanks with his imagination, but so what? His biography of Lincoln was not intended as a scholarly treatise. Think of the mystic atmosphere of a campfire at night, with an elder telling about the greatest person in a tribe's history. That is Sandburg's accomplishment, making Lincoln live again among us, at least while we are surrounded by Sandburg's mesmerizing account. No one interested in Lincoln or in the meaning of America should miss the experience of these volumes.



3. This is a biography of Lincoln by the esteemed poet Carl Sandburg. I was born just up the road, US Route 34 (in Kewanee), from his home town of Galesburg, Illinois. Thus, I have always had a soft spot for this version of Lincoln's life
   
   As a poet, Sandburg's version tends to be more epic and mythical--and less critical--in its examination of Lincoln. For all of that, the book still works well. The first part, "The Prairie Years," recounts Lincoln's youth and early career before he attained the presidency. The story, of course, starts with his family settling in Kentucky, where Lincoln was born in 1809. Later, he moved with his family to Illinois. Lincoln began in New Salem and later moved to Springfield. Sandburg's depiction of his development, to becoming a practiced attorney, his political ambitions, his brief time in the militia, lays out the standard treatment of Lincoln, written extraordinarily well. Many anecdotes dot the volume. We see his doomed relationship with Ann Rutledge and his rocky courtship of Mary Todd. The discussion of his famous debates with Stephen Douglas in the Senate Campaign that brought him national visibility (and rendered him viable as a potential presidential candidate) is well told.
   
   Then, the work goes on to explore his place in the Civil War. The volume speak poignantly of the family tragedy that he experienced (the death of a child is always difficult), the strained relationship with his wife, the challenges of orchestrating the Union's war effort.
   
   In a sense, this is a poetic, lyric, romanticized view of Lincoln. It could scarcely be anything else, I think, given Sandburg's perspective. Nonetheless, for that, this is still a compelling work and worth a read.



4. Sandburg was a poet, and this is a poetic biography of Lincoln. Is that an asset or a liability? In today's climate of "facts, facts, facts," most would probably say the latter. But, in this instance, I would disagree. There are occasions when great poets hit, with their prose, closer to the mark than the historians. It's like the story of the spirit of one of the Russian aristocrats going through the history books and saying, "My secret is safe." Then he reads Tolstoy's War and Peace and shakes his ghostly fist, crying, "How did he know?" This is a great work by a great writer--and lest I give the wrong impression, there are a great many facts in this book. It's one of the most well-researched historical biographies ever written. But if you are looking for more than a biography of Lincoln, if you are looking to be transported, then this is the book for you.
   
   Richard Salva--author of Soul Journey from Lincoln to Lindbergh [UNABRIDGED]



5. For anyone that has an interest in American History and enjoys Biographies, this book is worth reading. Carl Sandburg is an excellent writer and sprinkles anecdotes from people who knew Lincoln to really add reality to this reading.
   Lincoln was a fascinating person who led the US in a critical time in its history. This book captures what he was like and reinforces why he is so revered in this country.

5 comments about Grover Cleveland: (The American Presidents Series).

1. I think there is another book out there on Grover Cleveland called an honest president. Here Graff just confirms why Grover was a straight shooting honest politician. He made the comment when faced with controversy with "Lets tell the truth". What a novel way for a politician. This is why Cleveland appeared on three presidential ballots, and was elected twice. People believed in him and his standards.
   Graff does a excellent job of detailing the 22th and 24th President. The book flowed easily, and I found myself interested throughout the book. Maybe it was because of the character of Cleveland. The nation needs leaders like him now.
   
   A very good short biography of an overlooked president. Graff sticks to the details but makes them interesting.



2. If you want great detail on the presidents, this book series, "The American Presidents," will not be for you. If, however, you would like to get better introduced to some of the Presidents with some quick reads, this series could be very attractive. "Grover Cleveland," written by Henry Graff, is one book in the series. At the outset, I will say that this is a nice introduction to Grover Cleveland; if you want lots of detail, though, this book will not be for you.
   
   That said, this is up to the usual dependable quality of works in this series. The book begins by placing the Cleveland family in context (e.g., I had never guessed that one of Cleveland's predecessors was a founder of Cleveland, Ohio, after whom the city was named!). The story of Cleveland's political career began in earnest when he served as Mayor of Buffalo, NY. This served as a launching point for his accession as Governor of New York. In the latter role, he distinguished himself as a "reformer."
   
   After that, as a result of a confluence of events, he was nominated for President as a Democrat. While running for office (not that candidates did much in the way of campaigning), it came out that Cleveland may have fathered a child out of wedlock. Indicative of Cleveland's reputation, when asked what his "handlers" should do, he said, "Tell the truth." Rather refreshing!
   
   Once elected, he served as a competent president, with some accomplishments in his first term. He was defeated when he ran for re-election, with Benjamin Harrison ousting him from office. However, four years later, he was re-elected to serve the White House. There were many challenges in his second term, some beyond his control. There was also the medical problem that was kept from public eye.
   
   The book winds down by talking of his life after the presidency. This 138 page volume gives a nice glimpse of Grover Cleveland, his presidency, his times, and his accomplishments. For what it is, it does well. Recommended for those who want a brief introduction to the presidents generally and Cleveland specifically.



3. Grover Cleveland's reputation among the presidents has risen over the past few years and Henry Graff's contribution to the American Presidents' series is welcome, though it is not a not terribly revealing study. Cleveland was known for his integrity but hardly remembered as a risk taker of any length as he served twice in the presidency. His years in Washington were solid, if not overly productive.
   
   This series about the U.S. presidents is designed to give a brief overview of the subects covered. This is not the best book in that series, but it is informative in many ways. The author tends to have more of a bent for covering the election process and the style of life exhibited by President Cleveland. Indeed the three elections in which Cleveland ran for president were all fairly close and worth a look, but I would like to have seen more on Cleveland's legacy and how it affected future presidencies. Graff's "Grover Cleveland" is a pleasant read, however.



4. This book does precisely what it promised to do, and not one thing more... it is a compact, readable, and informative account of the life and times of Grover Cleveland. I would enthusiastically recommend it to anyone whose knowledge about this underrated president is minimal but wishes to learn more; for those who already know a great deal about him, I would recommend those books that explore the details of his life, character, and administration (like the biographies by Allan Nevins or Rexford Tugwell). This book is a primer, nothing more and nothing less.



5. This is a really great addition to the American Presidents Series. The man that historian Henry Graff dusts off for us is deserving of a good deal of respect, and certainly deserves to be remembered for more than simply having served two non-consecutive terms. In these pages we are introduced to a chief magistrate who didn't concern himself with rocking the boat or actively engaging in creating policy. Rather, Grover Cleveland saw his role as one in which he would keep government honest.
   
   Cleveland's greatest responsibility, he felt, was "the public trust" (that is, keeping government's promise of responsible representation of "The People"). That said, he also believed that, while the public should support the government, government was not in charge of supporting the people. This hurt him politically during his second term when the country fell into difficult financial times. He was thus unwilling to have the Federal government step in to enact legislation that might well have made a difference. Here, Cleveland stands in stark contrast to future Presidents (most notably FDR and the New Deal) and reveals himself to be typical of men who governed during America's "Gilded Age." In our retrospective points-of-view, however, we consider this -Cleveland's laid-back response-to be his one remarkable failing.
   
   Cleveland had no great crisis with which to contend, no nation-changing events that might have challenged him into action that would have lifted him into the category of great or near-great presidents. He was no Lincoln. Then again, he didn't need to be.
   
   Mr. Graff's book is easy to read and is a good, brief introduction to a man whose best legacy to the Oval Office was his service as a good and decent man who restored credibility and respect to the Office of President after a series of rather luke-warm, forgettable presidencies.

1 comments about Yeltsin: A Life.

1. Colton has provided a smart, well-researched and well-written account of a pivotal figure in Russian history.

5 comments about Presidential Courage: Brave Leaders and How They Changed America 1789-1989.

1. I recommend this book be read by everybody in America-in order to learn more about some of our finest Presidents. I was educated on things that I had not learned before-FASCINATING!



2. How did Michael Beschloss get to be "America's Leading Presidential Historian?" I can only assume it is because he has a talent for getting himself on TV again & again...because it certainly isn't because of dreadful efforts such as this.
   
   Setting content aside for a moment --- how can any literate person regard this as well written? It reads like a Power Point presentation, or more specifically, like research notes which were never revised into a coherent narrative. It's hard to have narrative at all when your chapters are only 5 pages long! Suffice it to say, I found the writing to be such an irritant that I ultimately never finished the book. Life is too short to read crappy writing.
   
   As for the content itself, this is all ground which has been well-covered many times before and Beschloss' conclusions are generally quite unremarkable. When he isn't stating the obvious, Beschloss is dumbing down the subject matter to make it appear more simple than it really was.
   
   Just as an example, I would point to Andrew Jackson & the Bank War. Exactly how is this courageous? Jackson was enjoying tremendous popular support when he went in for the kill against the 2nd BUS, and he was as convinced of his own rectitude as any man ever has. Also, it is grossly inaccurate to characterize the 2nd BUS as corrupt. Nicholas may have been a ruthless autocrat, but nobody could accuse him of corruption. That label would be more accurately applied to Jackson's "pet banks" into which Jackson put government deposits, and which were largely responsible for the catastrophic Panic of 1837. Does Beschloss provide anything more than the most shallow of analysis? Of course not.
   
   I never would have purchased this in the first place, but it was part of a book club shipment which I opened by mistake, thinking that it was another (better-written) book. It was only the first of many regrets.



3. Like the rest of us, our Presidents have been flawed people -- each with his own limitations, prejudices, and conflicts. And yet, through our history, at times these men have risen above their limitations to exert extraordinary leadership: grasping a moral imperative with uncommon clarity, and finding the strength and passion to use the powers of the office to follow that moral imperative despite great risk to their own political fortunes -- and, in some cases, to their very lives.
   
   "Presidential Courage" tells the stories behind nine such moments of courageous leadership. In none of them is the protagonist portrayed as an all-knowing superhero. In each, we see the President wrestle with a challenge in a profoundly human way -- beset by the uncertainties, self-doubts, pride and fear that are familiar to all who struggle with a moral dilemma. In each case, the President ultimately comes to the painful decision that the right course of action is contrary to what his advisors recommend or public opinion demands. And yet he chooses to throw himself into the breach.
   
   The author's research is impressive, drawing upon unpublished papers and (for President Reagan) interviews with people who witnessed personal dimensions behind publicly reported events. As a result, the stories contain many human details that do not make it into our school curriculum or popular awareness. These details are not always flattering. Kennedy, for example, is portrayed as being dragged only reluctantly to the "right" side of racial equality. And for Truman, his own anti-semitic bias was a key obstacle that he had to overcome. But to a large degree it is precisely the humanity of the way these men struggled with -- and triumphed over -- their personal limitations that gives these stories such inspirational impact.
   
   One aspect of the book that I particularly enjoyed was the transitions between chapters. The author searches out connections between these men, suggesting almost spiritual ways in which the legacies of past Presidents have in effect enabled them to reach forward through time to inspire their successors. It gives hope that the best moments in our presidential history will yet empower future leaders, at least from time to time, to rise above their limitations to achieve great things as well.



4. I had high expectations for this book. It let me down a little. It just wasn't that engaging. Some of it is very well known like JFK's battle with civil rights. I was looking for a good analysis on the different presidents and their actions. I didn't find that. I found that Mr. Beschloss just told about the different incident but didn't offer any new insight to it. I was hoping that he would even use them to give perspective on what is happening now but he didn't. I rated this book 3 stars because he does include several presidents and topics that I was unaware of. For that it was worth my time reading it. This is a very basic book so I would recommend it to people that are wanting to learn about the presidents and their thought processes concerning major events in their presidencies.



5. I agree with all the negative reviews of this book, which I found profoundly disappointing. Indeed, as I have indicated in the title of this review, the book actually depressed me as a sign of just how ill-educated the general American reading public has become. The entire book read like the academic equivalent of cotton candy. You don't have to be a trained academician to be disappointed with Bescholoss's mamby-pamby history-for-the-masses style. Other popular historians such as Doris Kearns Goodwin (Team of Rivals), Joseph Ellis (His Excellency George Washington, Founding Brothers), David McCullough (John Adams, Truman) and Walter Isaacson (Benjamin Franklin) all run rings around Bescholoss in terms of the depth and weight they bring to their books, without sacrificing readability and enjoyability in the slightest.
   To me, the most damning aspect of Beschloss' pathetic entry in the popular history market is his tendency to give such short shrift to knotty historical details as to render his statements misleading or even false. One of the most egregious examples occurs in a chapter on Lincoln's decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, where Bescholoss writes: "[That] July, he [Lincoln] summoned his Cabinet and read them his draft of a preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. On New Year's 1863, 'all persons held as slaves within any state' would become 'forever' free." (page 109) This is the closest Bescholoss ever comes in the book to telling the reader what the Emancipation Proclamation actually said. Actually, the full text was as follows: "all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free." Beschloss simply omits any discussion of the fact Lincoln's proclamation only freed the slaves in the Confederacy, over which he had no actual power, and failed to free the slaves in the Union slave states over which he did have power (specifically, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, and West Virginia).
   One is left with the unmistakeable impression that Bescholoss either doesn't have the patience to go into the political and strategic reasons Lincoln had for making this distinction; or else Beschloss doesn't think his readers are clever or patient enough to understand such a historical analysis. Either way, the complete absence of any discussion of more subtle issues like this demands a poor review for this overly pretentious book.

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

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



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



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



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



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

5 comments about A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House.

1. Arthur M. Schlesinger wrote in 1965 a detailed account of the Kennedy presidency, 'A Thousand Days'. During this administration Arthur M. Schlesinger was special assistant to President Kennedy. It is quite an achievement. In more than thousand pages Schlesinger gives an inside view of the difficult decisions and complicated discussions within the administration. In his account he expresses his profound admiration for John F. Kennedy. It is this uncritical acclaim of the President that raises some doubts about the judgment of Schlesinger. On the other hand his historian broad view makes the book immensely readable. It is exhilarating to read about the way Kennedy reaches decisions in the Cuban Bay of Pigs incident. It illuminates the restrictions in presidential decision making. Kennedy was not at all amused by the military preparations and conspiracies with Cuban exiles. But he decided to go along because of the damage being afflicted by pulling back. So, I recommend this account of the famous Kennedy presidency, but keep a sceptical eye on the judgments of Schlesinger. Arthur M. Schlesinger died in 2007.
   
   Luuk Oost



2. The value of A Thousand Days is self-apparent to anyone who has ever attempted to seriously examine the policies of the Kennedy administration.
   
   Arthur Schlesinger Jr., with an undeniably skilled pen and an exhaustive eye for detail, compiled one of the most thorough accounts of the Kennedy administration. I don't see how it could be that surprising, at this point in time, that participants in an administration generally tend to write books that view their president in a favorable light. Is anyone really that shocked?
   
   Did he take an interest in JFK's love life or other prurient topics? No. Did he seek to write a definitive evaluation of the president? No. Schlesinger is honest - he is writing by and large as a participant and an observer and the value of this account is that it captures the outlook and motivations of the administration. He left it to other authors to write more critical accounts - the value his book holds comes from the personal observations he makes throughout it.
   
   You don't have to like Kennedy to find this book valuable. Plenty of people critical of the Kennedy administration have studied this book carefully. Its value as a firsthand account of the administration is self-apparent. If it happens to challenge the Limbaugh right's view of JFK . . . well, oh well. The rest of us can approach this book with care and real interest, allow for natural instances of human bias, and still come away better informed for the effort.



3. Schlesinger starts out by stating in the forward, "This work is not a comprehensive history of the Kennedy Presidency. It is a personal memoir by one who served in the White House during the Kennedy years." In the first two sentences, Schlesinger tells his first two lies.
   
   There is no way that this can be considered a memoir, especially when on countless occasions Schlesinger himself admits that he was not involved nor really informed about issues. How can it be considered a memoir when he is basing his statements at times purely on documents? That is a "comprehensive history" and not a "personal memoir."
   
   Despite Schlesinger's failure in his initial task, he does tell the history of the administration in great, albeit bias, depth. It is tough to avoid repetition over 1031 pages, but Schlesinger does a good job avoiding informing me of the same thing in three different ways. As well, he interlocks the history from chapter to chapter and explains its interconnectedness to defend Kennedy. Schlesinger attempts to tie the domestic problems such as the U.S. Steel company raising its prices into foreign policy. It is doubtful that his foreign successes and failures would have been any different without the U.S. Steel controversy, except to Schlesinger.
   
   As Schlesinger admits, he overstates the importance of the advisors, especially himself. Regardless of what he did, he manages to mention himself in every chapter in a last ditch attempt to memoirize this history. Sometimes he did something, other times he just had a conversation with the president. On another occasion, to include himself in the chapter he writes about how he jumped in a swimming pool when Mrs. Ethel Kennedy fell in. For the first time and only time on that one page, it is a memoir.
   
   Despite the excessively pro-Kennedy attitude, Schlesinger does manage to vividly describe the administration. He takes us around the world from Southeast Asia with Vietnam and Laos to Africa with the dealing with Sekou Toure and other Moscow-leaning leaders to Europe and troubles pleasing De Gaulle and keeping control of the Americas despite Castro. The foreign policy of the administration is explored, if not fairly criticized, for most of the book. He is less in depth on domestic policy, however he devotes a good 150 pages to the Civil Rights Movement and the budget and congressional legislation. He also attempts quite successfully to argue the point that Kennedy failed to keep the people up to date on what was going on in the world. He even elevated Kennedy above his even more beloved Roosevelt by stating that FDR addressed the nation "no more than two (times) a year" before the war compared to Kennedy averaging three a year. Kennedy also frequently made speeches at colleges such as American and Yale.
   
   Almost as common as the Kennedy praising was the Eisenhower bashing. He over-generalizes the conservatism of the Eisenhower administration and he criticizes some things that Kennedy adopts and praises Kennedy for adopting, such as the large peacetime budget deficit. Conversely, he over-generalizes the liberalism of the Kennedy administration. The changes made were on a large-scale slight. The only major policy change was the change from defeating communism to containing it. And even that change was only a spoken change as proven by the Bay of Pigs and the continued hope for an overthrow of Castro.
   
   Overall, Schlesinger does a good job organizing the book logically. With two exceptions, everything follows with at least a logical flow. Only in the middle when he changes from foreign to domestic policy and a few chapters later when he goes back to foreign policy does the reader need to stop and readjust himself (well, also when he starts talking about the swimming pool incident).
   
   The history is accurate, even if it is bias, and it is an interesting, but long read. If you don't mind the bias or don't want to form your own opinion, it is worth the read. At least you are warned.



4. Simply put, this is one of the books that shattered Schlesinger's credibility as a legitimate historian once and for all. Once he was "Artie," the precocious high-flying historian/prodigy, amazing his peers & elders with his dazzling talents as an author & scholar. Now he is a superannuated peddler of Camelot nostalgia and a defender of a school of thought that has been so thoroughly discredited over the years that it truly is a wonder that anyone takes Schlesinger seriously anymore. Really, the only author/historian that is worse in this field is possibly Manchester.
   
   How can anyone regard this stuff as serious history? It is as though Schlesinger has sustained a sort of man-crush on JFK for all these years and cannot bring himself to be even remotely objective about a rather undistinguished administration. He really contributes nothing to this field of study, so save yourself the effort of reading this tripe.



5. A Thousand Days could hardly be classified as history and basically is an emotionally charged admiration of the 35th President. However, it is one of the classics that helped proliferate the Camelot myth that, unfortunately, continues to persist to this day.

5 comments about Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader.

1. Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3KMX3LR39IF00 This is an oldie but a goody indeed. How McCain makes us long for Ronald Reagan the Great!



2. In a way, I always thought that authors who write about Reagan have it easy. How hard could it be to write interesting and inspiring words about a man who was both?
   
   However, the author of this book has taken a bit of a different approach with this book by focusing as much on the "Reagan movenment" as he does Reagan himself.
   
   History is going to be very good to Reagan and it will be because of the movement he created - it spite of the spineless Republicans of today.
   
   I really enjoyed reading the book. It flows easily through the Reagan years and, if you are a Reagan fan, you will close this book, sigh, and say, "God I miss Ronald Reagan!"



3. Most biographers who attempt to write about Ronald Reagan typically get frustrated at some point in their effort and throw up their hands saying, "I can't get to know this man!" Indeed, the man that some many of us felt close to without ever having met him was apparently a very tough nut to crack if you wanted to get close to him in person.
   
   As a result, many biographies supposedly about Reagan offer very little insight into the man and what made him succeed and fail. They talk about his life and history, his advisers and their ideas, but they don't capture anything about the man that you wanted to learn about when you picked up the book in the first place - D'Souza does and that's what makes this book different and better from the rest.
   
   D'Souza was a young aid in the Reagan White House and maybe that gives him a bit of an advantage in capturing the essence of Reagan, but I think most of the credit has to go to something far more fundamental; D'Souza hasn't lost the ability to see Reagan the way most Americans saw him, he hasn't lost sight of what America was like before Reagan compared to what it's like now. That gives D'Souza a perspective on Reagan that most academics (which D'Souza is) neglect. It makes all the difference in this book.
   
   D'Souza really captures a man guided by a vision and a philosophy rather than by polls, a real leader rather than someone who went whichever way popular sentiment carried him. Reagan's ideas about America and its relationship to the rest of the world were positive, contrary to popular thoughts and, as it turns out, right.
   
   If you like Reagan, you will love the way D'Souza articulates how the man accomplished everything he did. If you don't like Reagan, D'Souza's look at Reagan offers the best argument I've encountered that you'll have to counter in order to sway his supporters to your way of thinking.
   
   Highly recommended. A great book about a great President.



4. Very informative. This book will give you a new appreciation for our recent history.



5. D'Souza does a decent job in his biography on the character of Reagan. My biggest complaint with this book is that it does not actually tell us anything about Reagan and his presidency. So much times is spent on the character that by the time you are done understanding Reagan's moral values the book is over and I felt I learned nothing about what Reagan did and how these values played out. For those who have really studied Reagan it is a great addition but if you are looking for only one book try Richard Reeves.

3 comments about The Alexiad (Penguin Classics).

1. The Alexiad is a fascinating view of a critical time both in Byzantine and Western history. Anna Comnena tells the story how her father Alexius I seized the helm of an Empire in complete chaos and how he steered it for almost forty years through very troubled waters. The Byzantine Empire was threatened by Norman Sicily the Patinaks, Cumans and the Turks. Alexus had limited resources to deal with these great threats and had to use his cunning and courage to defeat them. This is a fascinating book and Anna wrote in flowing and intelligent prose. I only found one flaw which made the book hard at times to read, Anna Comnena's hatred for all things and persons not Byzantine or "Roman". She hated the nomadic Turkic peoples of Asia Minor and the Balkan peninsula but her scorn is most evident in her writing about western Catholics or "Latin's". The is no crime she will not accuse them of, even eating babies! It is sad to read how much hatred this woman had for fellow Christians. However I do recommend the book as long as it read with caution and in light of information from other writers both contemporary to Anna Comnena and modern.



2. An excellent translation of Comnena's work, remains true to the original Greek while providing good equivalents for the more difficult idiomatic expressions. Also includes a couple of very helpful maps and appendices. A wonderful read for anyone interested in Byzantine history.



3. In this history the Emperor Alexius comes across as a sort of medievil Lee Iacoca or Carlos Gohsn, who through very delicate wheeling and dealing manages to bring back a floundering empire from the brink. Since Anna was the emperor's daughter, we could expect a hagliography from her, but that would discredit her intensely perceptive analysis of the political situation as well as her own personal experiences with many of the major players or others who knew them. It would also ignore the fact that this book is in many ways a treatise by Anna on what it means to be a good ruler, as exemplified through the person of Alexius.
   
   Excellent book for history buffs and people looking for examples of great leadership.

5 comments about On the Trail of the Assassins.

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



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



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



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



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

5 comments about Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security.

1. If you look at the tally of this book's reviews, you'll see that it reflects the polarizing effect of the Clintons: reading this book without one's reaction to it being affected by personal bias is virtually impossible. Having read some of the cheering and much of the jeering for Dereliction of Duty, I will also agree with many critics that what Patterson offers, although based on fact, is not an in-depth and dispassionate analysis. Therein lays the fundamental drawback of Patterson's work: the words on the jacket are a little too ambitious for what he has in store. However, those same critics conveniently forget some of the most egregious lapses of our former president, several of which are recorded in this book. One example worthy of note is the loss of the "nuclear biscuit", something a military officer could be court-marshaled for, but Clinton shrugged off as no big deal.
   
   In fact, if this book has a unique merit, it is to capture fairly accurately the frustration and disappointment of many professionals who served in the military during the Clinton years. While this is not a message that will easily resonate with those who have never worn a uniform, as a retired senior officer, I, for one, certainly understand Patterson's motivation to write his book, even though I don't agree with all of his reasoning. It is perhaps worth clarifying that most service members, myself and Patterson included, accept without qualms the civilian control of the military. However, when that control is exercised with ignorance, arrogance and disrespect for those who serve, the results can only be perplexity and indignation. If the examples Patterson chooses to illustrate these traits in the Clintons are nothing new and may even appear petty to some, they will nonetheless evoke unpleasantly familiar feelings in most veterans who served in that era.
   
   The objection may be raised that, when it comes to ignorance and arrogance, other administrations have been just as guilty, but that is besides the point: this book is about two years of experience in the Clintons' White House, so it is their ignorance and their arrogance that take center stage. And while the author often uses his personal observations as springboards for unwarranted pontification, the aggregate of those observations does capture the general atmosphere. Patterson openly admits to being captivated by Clinton's charm, but also provides enough behind-the-scenes insight to offer a limited glimpse of Bill's and, to a lesser extent, Hillary's quirks. Their privileged mentality, as well as their perceived right to treat all others as lesser beings (whom they owe no accountability), comes through clearly enough.
   
   Ultimately, rather than an in-depth discussion or new revelations pertaining to Clinton's mishandling of National Security matters, this book should have been portrayed less pretentiously as a collection of observations by an author who enjoyed a unique and close perspective of the Clinton presidency. The overambitious attempt at making it into anything more raises the reader's expectations beyond Patterson's ability to deliver. Even with all that, I found it an interesting account from one who wasn't just close, but actually there.



2. This books purports to show an insiders view, but it misses the mark. The author tries to emphasize his own importance and insiders view, but the book is rather slim, and overly padded, there are 150 pages of text in relatively large type with lots of space. This is an expose from someone who overheard conversations. This was certainly written by a conservative trying to make the point that we should fight a military war on terror, going to many countries. The book is full of inuendo and guesses. I thought these aides were supposed to sign an oath of confidentiality. A trash book.



3. This was a gift for my father. Didn't get a chance to read it, but per his review, it was a great book. Highly recommend for anyone wanting to get a better insight into the Clintons.



4. It's also very interesting that after I bought this book, when I looked for it in the store later, it had disappeared! I still look, and it's still not there.
   
   And to think 1/2 the democrats in this country want to give them another four years!



5. Do yourself a favor before buying this dishonest piece of political propaganda and lies...click on the authors name and look at the titles of the other extremist junk this wacko has written. He's a paid political propagandist as bad as Limbaugh or Hannity. He's an embrassment to legitimate authors. This kind of political propaganda is dividing America and ruining the country.