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 The Rise of Napoleon Bonaparte.

1. Perhaps my letdown by this book was inevitable coming as it did immediately after my reading of Doris Kearns Goodwin's demythification of Lincoln's human leadership power (see my review of Team of Rivals). Neither subject nor author could measure up here.
   
   In any case, this "battlefield biography" never really tells who Napoleon was, but what he did on the field of battle, and that with an over-reliance on secondary sources and unsupported generalizations and opinions.
   
   This book was followed by "The Fall of Napoleon Bonaparte" by the author, but not by me.
   
   The most enlightening part of the book was the statement Napoleon purportedly made at his coronation as Emperor of France, leaning over to his brother and whispering: "If only our father could see us now." That one quote tells more of the personality and motivation then hundreds of pages of battlefield maneuvering. Here was not a monster or maniac, or even a masterful monarch, doing great things on a great stage, here was a young man with verve and vigor emulating and now far exceeding his father, and wishing for his approval and adoration.
   
   Skip this one.



2. Napoleon Bonaparte was born in Corsican obscurity in 1769. He was involved in patriotic struggle in Corsica; studied at a French military school and won his fame during the French Revolution. Napoleon has had millions upon millions of words and thousands of books written upon his fabled career. In his life he became emperor of the French; fought the major powers of the nineteenth century such as Britain, Austria, Prussia, Austria and Russia; wed and divorced Josephine; married Maria Louise of Austria; lost at Waterloo and died in exile on the island of St. Helena.
   Robert Asprey is an American historian who has authored several books of military history. This book is the first volume in a brisk two volume work. Asprey has a plain style; briefly covers major battles such as
   the Battle of the Nile, Maregno and Austerlitz and delves into the love life and mecurial character of the little corporal who was the cynosure of so much adulation and hatred in the nineteenth century world.
   Asprey does not go into excessive detail in describing military actions and his maps are few and far between. His coverage of diplomacy is not filled with details but does give the general reader an idea of the issues involved. If you seek a more scholarly and detailed look at the battles pick up the hefty tome "The Campaigns of Napoleon" by the eminent David Chandler; if you want more of the life of the average soldier in the French army turn to John Elting and if you want all the sexy intrigue of the Napoleonic court turn to Evangeline Bruce.
   If, however, you are a student or a neophyte to Napoleonic study this fine general biography will be a good place to begin study of the Napoleon era.
   Asprey is balanced in his portrait of Napoleon who was neither saint nor sinner but a tough, brilliant battlefield commander who worshipped at the shrine of power and egomania.I recommend this book and the second volume "The Reign of Napoleon Bonaparte." Good reading!



3. Robert Asprey has delivered an outstanding look at one of the world's greatest military minds and leaders.
   
   Not focusing simply on Napolean's personal life, Asprey paints his character's life and actions against the canvas of then-current events, such as the French Revolution.
   
   Asprey's literary style is efficient but entertaining, and he does not encumber the reader with military minutia -- an accomplishment considering his subject.
   
   If you seek a biography to explain who Napolean was and what he did -- this is a great start.



4. I am a high school senior who is planning to major in history in college I thought that it was a very engaging book even for my limited vocabulary and reading ability. It is truly an unbiased essay on Napoleon's life and adds an element I've never found before. Asprey shows what we are all missing out on when people write biased biographies. A must have if you want a book on Napoleon's life, military battles, and his destructive relationship with Josephine. Hope you guys like it.



5. All the major events are covered, but there is little or no analysis/detailed description of those events. If you have little or no previous knowledge of Napoleon, this book would leave you thinking that the battle of Austerlitz was really not a big deal at all.
   
   Very disappointing read.

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.

5 comments about Stalin: The First In-depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia's Secret Archives.

1. For 50 years, few have disputed that Stalin was one of the cruelest men since Vlad the Impaler and his own contemporary, Adolf Hitler. It's an interesting footnote that, long after his death, we have people bearing signs that read, "Jews Beware! Stalin Will Soon Return!"
   
   His reign of terror is remarkable in that he was able to slaughter so many while at the same time maintaining a public façade of "Uncle Joe," the merciful one. One can only speculate on what drove so paranoid a lunatic into the games he played with human lives and how he so coldly turned his back and partied during the starvation of his people. A horrifying example is the amusement with which he would dispose of wives and family members merely to "send a message" to his henchmen--and then killed them anyway.
   
   I have read of Stalin before the fall of the Soviet Union and the release of many of the archives that led to this book--while he was known to have murdered so many, reading Radzinsky's exploration of the files leaves one utterly repulsed at so ugly an animal. May his example give us the strength to topple such madmen in the future.



2. Well it was a very interesting book. But sadly this book didn't make me want to hate Stalin any more then I used to. In fact it only made me want to understand him more! Now I'm not going to lie, I like the guy a lot. But I have very mixed feelings about Stalin. Part of me admires him deeply, while the other half despises what he did to those poor Russians, Ukranians, Georigans, Eastern Europeans, ect..... But did it even accure to the author of the book that mabye Stalin was trying to act more Russian then Georgian due to the fact that his country was a part of the Russian empire when he was a child? And did it accure to him that maybe in some kind of way those Russians perhaps made him feel a little ashamed of being Georigan? Heck it wouldn't suprise me. After all it seems to me like this guy was trying to act more Russian then his own nationality. I say the guy should do a little more research about Stalin! Even if it kills him!



3. This book does have a lot of information and does provide some unique insights into the personality of Stalin, but it suffers in several ways:
   1. The author tends to jump from one time period to another and it is sometimes difficult to tell exactly where in time an event took place.
   2. It occasionally has some awkward sentence structures. This may be a result of translation.
   3. The author used the pronoun "I" much more than what I have seen in other biographies. In other words he places myself in the action or explains how he got some information.
   4. At times it reads more like a mystery spy novel than a biography. He would end a paragraph with a question instead of a declarative statement.
   5. Except for the main characters, the long and un-pronounceable Russia names made it very hard to follow exactly who he was talking about.



4. This is a literate and dramatic telling of Stalin's life and times from birth to death. The knowns and unknowns of Stalin are covered, as well as his colleagues (or adverseries in Stalin's case). The author's style is literary - a playwright by vocation - as if writing a novel. So, yes, there are the usual cliffhanger chapter endings and is suspensful to a degree - - a definite page turner overall. Also, the author is a native who lived part of his childhood during the Stalin era and his father felt the full brunt of Stalinism. So I like the touch of the personal emotion here. Is more readable and personable than the Conquest and Service bios, and covers more time than Montefiore. I heartily recommend.



5. Of all the Stalin books, this is the best one by far. I strongly recommend it.

No comments about Clinton in Exile: A President Out of the White House.

3 comments about The Autobiography and Other Writings (Penguin Classics).

1. In many ways, this is, to someone coming to it for the first time, a very surprising book. For one thing, it is amazingly incomplete. Franklin is, of course, one of the most famous Americans who ever lived, and his accomplishments in a wide array of endeavors are a part of American lore and popular history. A great deal of this lore and many of his accomplishments are missing from this account of his life. He never finished the autobiography, earlier in his life because he was too busy with what he terms public "employments," and later in life because the opium he was taking for kidney stones left him unable to concentrate sufficiently. Had Franklin been able to write about every period of his life and all of his achievements, his AUTOBIOGRAPHY would have been one of the most remarkable documents every produced. It is amazingly compelling in its incomplete state.
   As a serious reader, I was delighted in the way that Franklin is obsessed with the reading habits of other people. Over and over in the course of his memoir, he remarks that such and such a person was fond of reading, or owned a large number of books, or was a poet or author. Clearly, it is one of the qualities he most admires in others, and one of the qualities in a person that makes him want to know a person. He finds other readers to be kindred souls.
   
   If one is familiar with the Pragmatists, one finds many pragmatist tendencies in Franklin's thought. He is concerned less with ideals than with ideas that work and are functional. For instance, at one point he implies that while his own beliefs lean more towards the deistical, he sees formal religion as playing an important role in life and society, and he goes out of his way to never criticize the faith of another person. His pragmatism comes out also in list of the virtues, which is one of the more famous and striking parts of his book. As is well known, he compiled a list of 13 virtues, which he felt summed up all the virtues taught by all philosophers and religions. But they are practical, not abstract virtues. He states that he wanted to articulate virtues that possessed simple and not complex ideas. Why? The simpler the idea, the easier to apply. And in formulating his list of virtues, he is more concerned with the manner in which these virtues can be actualized in one's life. Franklin has utterly no interest in abstract morality.
   
   One of Franklin's virtues is humility, and his humility comes out in the form of his book. His narrative is exceedingly informal, not merely in the first part, which was ostensibly addressed to his son, but in the later sections (the autobiography was composed upon four separate occasions). The informal nature of the book displays Franklin's intended humility, and for Franklin, seeming to be so is nearly as important as actually being so. For part of the function of the virtues in an individual is not merely to make that particular person virtuous, but to function as an example to others. This notion of his being an example to other people is one of the major themes in his book. His life, he believes, is an exemplary one. And he believes that by sharing the details of his own life, he can serves as a template for other lives.
   
   One striking aspect of his book is what one could almost call Secular Puritanism. Although Franklin was hardly a prude, he was nonetheless very much a child of the Puritans. This is not displayed merely in his promotion of the virtues, but in his abstaining from excessiveness in eating, drinking, conversation, or whatever. Franklin is intensely concerned with self-governance.
   
   I think anyone not having read this before will be surprised at how readable and enjoyable this is. I think also one can only regret that Franklin was not able to write about the entirety of his life. He was a remarkable man with a remarkable story to tell.



2. For many this is this Letter of advice from Franklin to his son is the perfect embodiment of wisdom of American business success. For D.H.Lawrence however it showed the 'shop-keeping ' lack of soul, of Franklin and he mocked him in his 'Classic Studies on American Literature'.
   In this work Franklin creates and promotes the legend of himself. He is a great inventor, a fabulous pragmatist. He also tells the story of his own rise , and shows how hard work and going through times of difficulty with determination and strength are important.
   The work contains much of the kind of pithy wisdom Franklin made himself known with in America through 'Poor Richard's Almanac'
   It is not a full biography, and it of course omits many other sides of the mind and character of this complex genius.



3. Personal letters of Franklin to his son which recounts his experiences in the fledgling republic which became America. Limited scope of writings prevent true insight and understanding of Franklin, but what is present shows the more personal side of him. Following his autobiography, a compilation of his other writings is included. As with any autobiography, caution against vanity is needed when reading, but not in Franklin's case. He does attempt to glorify his actions or a better image.

1 comments about Around the World with LBJ: My Wild Ride as Air Force One Pilot, White House Aide, and Personal Confidant.

1. There are those who disliked LBJ. They probably would have felt differently if they had known the personal man. This book gives highly personal insights into a man often called "bigger than life." And, reading this well written and well-researched book (the author lived it), many would change those negative views.
   
   The writing is interesting, well done, and highly engaging. The author, retired Air Force General, Air Force One Plane Commander, and Presidential Military Aide James Cross said he wanted to show the unknown and deep humanity of President Johnson. He succeeds without pandering, but rather just by stating plain-spoken truths from an impressive man himself, General Cross.
   
   General Cross started as an Alabama country boy and became a close confidante of the President of the United States. He was not political; he was a highly respected and respectable officer in the U. S. Air Force who did his job and did it well. General Cross is the unsung hero here. The incidental glimpses we get of him in this book - definitely not given to build himself up - show a very decent man serving his president and his country well and with good, old-fashioned patriotism and honor.
   
   I would personally estimate that almost anyone who reads this book will enjoy it, be impressed by it, and come away from it with a much more positive image of President Johnson...plus meeting a genuinely nice guy who our country is fortunate to have had that close to the top: General James U. Cross
   Review by:
   Dick Stanford
   The Azusa Gazette
   Book Reviews
   May 2008

3 comments about George H. W. Bush: The American Presidents Series: The 41st President, 1989-1993 (The American Presidents).

1. This book, authored by Timothy Naftali, ends with the following comment (Page 176): "George W. Bush's controversial presidency led to a positive reassessment of his father's time in the White House. . . .[M]any missed the elder Bush's realism, his diplomacy, his political modesty, and, yes, even his prudence."
   
   George H. W. Bush was a one term president who presided over the end of the Cold War. This slender biography, another entry in The American Presidents series, provides a useful biography of the 41st president of the United States. The book begins with his childhood and youth, culminating in his estimable service in the Navy's air wing, including being shot down in the Pacific. Upon his return to the United States, Bush entered Yale and, upon graduation, became a businessman who did well, after moving from New England to Texas.
   
   In Texas, Bush became interested in politics, and public service consumed him until the end of his presidency. He was ambitious from the start of his career. He had successes (election to the House of Representatives) and failures (defeat in a Senate race). He became a person respected by his Republican Party leaders, and served in a number of important roles, from Director of the CIA, Ambassador to the U. N., Chair of the Republican National Committee, and head of the U. S. diplomatic post in the People's Republic of China.
   
   After his China tour, he began thinking about the presidency. It didn't work out in 1980 (Ronald Reagan simply did a better job as candidate); however, he got quite a consolation prize--Vice President. Then, the tale of his campaign to become President in 1988.
   
   Once elected, he displayed prudence. He ran into trouble when he backed off his "Read my lips; no new taxes" promise from the 1988 campaign. Many Republicans were angered. His presidency did feature both domestic successes and foreign policy successes (end of the Cold War and the stunning cobbling together of a coalition to boot Iraq out of Kuwait--and his refusal to advance on Baghdad). There were also problems, such as seeming sometimes to be out of touch. Then , his dismaying defeat by Bill Clinton in 1992.
   
   All in all, a good depiction of the man and his presidency. Another worthy addition to the series.



2. This was not a strict biography of the entire life of George H. W. Bush. The author. Timothy Naftali, gave brief information about President Bush's family background, military service and early career and of course how he came into public life. Most of the book centered on the challenges that President Bush faced during his years of presidential service and how his early experiences influenced the decisions that he made at a very difficult time in the history of the world.
   
   President Bush was at the helm during the period when the Cold War ended and the people of the Eastern European countries were throwing off the shackles of years of enforced communist rule. The author states that "Poland was the scene of the first dramatic change. In February 1989 Solidarity was legalized and Lech Walesa entered into talks with the Communist government to prepare for a new electoral system."
   
   President Bush's diplomatic relationship with Mikhail Gorbachev was good which was helpful in negotiating peaceful resolutions to some of the many problems which surfaced as the Cold War was ending. The nonviolent reunification of East and West Germany was also accredited to the President's intervention. A few years later in 1991, his diplomacy helped to garner a coalition of united forces that joined together to defeat Saddam Hussein's take over of Kuwait.
   
   On the home front, the President was not particularly popular. The American people found him difficult to understand. In some ways his aristocratic coolness turned many people off and within the Republican Party, he did not have the strong backing that President Reagan had experienced. The election promise that President Bush made when he ran for office was, "Read my lips--no new taxes." When he was forced to break that promise he lost a great deal of support and his bid for reelection.
   
   Timothy Naftali's assessment of President Bush was that he was probably the right man for the job at that time and that "George Bush answered the call for greatness when his country required it." I thought this book was well done and it helped me to understand more about world politics and President Bush. Time and history seems to be the best judge of how well a president performed while in office.
   
   
   
   



3. George Herbert Walker Bush - 1989-93
   "Read my lips!" the elder Bush said when he promised no raise in taxes. When taxes were raised, David Duke said he meant, "Kiss my hips!" The door opened for a stampede on the Oval Office from Pat Buchanan to Ross Perot. Perot was an eccentric billionaire. "You want jobs? Here's the deal!" He got scared he was going to win and dropped out. He re-entered and got 19% of the vote as his Reform Party's candidate. The legacy of Bush 41 is his confrontation with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Saddam invaded oil-rich Kuwait in 1990. Bush put together a coalition and drove him out. Bush said it was not about oil. If it was not about oil, then it was not about anything. Americans do not care about Kuwaitis or Iraqis. They care about driving to and from sporting events, getting home to their wives and kids and putting food on the table. Bush made enemies across the Muslim world. Americans who wanted regime change in 1991 would get their chance. Bush kept looking at his watch when he debated Clinton. He underestimated Baby Boomers.

1 comments about Everything American Presidents Book: All You Need to Know About the Leaders Who Shaped U.S. History (Everything: Travel and History).

1. After recently watching a wonderful 4 hour show on the Presidents on C-SPAN, I realized how much I had forgotten or never learned over the years. I was seeking a book that was interesting, quick and yet easy to carry for my bus ride to work. After looking at all the books available in Borders (ones that didn't have an obvious agenda), I would say this was a great choice. For me, I just wanted a review in chronological order that wasn't too elementary.

5 comments about The Whiskey Rebellion: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and the Frontier Rebels Who Challenged America's Newfound Sovereignty.

1. The book is a waste of time. It takes only about 5 pages to realize that the author's knowledge of Western Pennsylvania history is very shallow but that his opinions are very deep.
   
   You know...white people bad...Indians good...rich people bad...poor people good but oppressed.
   
   The Whiskey Rebellion is an interesting part of American history but sadly this book does it no justice. It was the equilivant of reading an 11th grade school report based on a Time magazine article.



2. I have read dozens of books on early American history. This is by far the worst. I expect histories to at least attempt some balance. This book has none. It is simply big, evil, bad guys (Hamilton and owners of government debt) vs poor, oppressed, good guys (small whiskey producers in the West).



3. I could list several errors in the text but the most notable is that of geography. Hogeland erroneously lists Newburyport as being in New Hampshire. It is in Massachusetts and as any well trained historian can atest it is one of the more significant municipalities of early America. Every liberal minded American should know all about Newburyport, MA before embarking on anything else relevant to the time and place from where our nation was born. To make such a clear error into print lets us know to always beware of what we read. It also arises questions of source types and research efficiency.
   
   Overall I found the text acceptable and easy to read. The Adobe font used is easy on the eyes even in dim light. The use of uncommon words I find uneccessary. One should leave the literary genius to works of greatness. I understand that his publisher pushed him but Mr. Hogeland was not being crafty just careless. Another word should be said on that of casting unwarranted character judgement throughout the book. I know some characters are colorful individuals to say the least but cut someone down based upon your own social moray is simply juvenile. It just leaves a bad taste in one's mouth. Overall I do enjoy reading books like this as it fun to expose myself to shoddy writing. I myself am a terrible writer and it makes me glad to know that I am not the only one.
   
   I will keep this book on my shelf and reread it but I doubt if I'll ever purchase another one of William Hogelands works on any of those edited by Lisa Drew. Nor, do I expect to cite this text.



4. Hamilton doesn't fare well in this text. Once again, I'm left wondering why He is on our Money. 'Wondering why Gallatin wasn't even given a guest appearence on one of the Lewis & Clark Nickles.
   
   My Thanks, again to the S.F. writer L. Neil Smith for starting my questioning of Hamilton, That was over 20 years ago. The Novel was "The Probability Broach".



5. Purchased as a gift for my son-in-law who is a history buff. Received in time for Christmas and packaged well (as usual for Amazon.com)