5 comments about For Love of Politics: Bill and Hillary Clinton: The White House Years.

1. I wanted a book in which the central focus was the relationship between Bill and Hillary Clinton. I got a book in which the central focus was scandal. No question: Scandals were a crucial and indelible part of the Clinton administration, and a necessary element of any half-way honest account. I have no doubt that Smith gets the details right, and after reading this book I was properly furious with Bill. He lost a lot of his idealism, became far too poll driven, disgraced the presidency and the White House in particular and gave us eight years of George W. Bush. Heck, the way this book puts it he was almost single handedly responsible for 9/11. It just defies credibility that the book doesn't aknowledge in any detail that the Clintons accomplished a single thing in eight years, that there was anything going on other than the scandels and the failures. I don't know that Smith is necessarily a Republican, but I do know that she pads her meager anecdotes about the Clinton family with the lard of the Lewisnky and White Water scandels, and she comes across less as a historian than as a gossipy tabloid writer.



2. Was it all so seedy, all so sordid? That's how the Clinton years feel reading this book. Of course, most depictions of the inner workings of any White House administration make for a depressing read. But perhaps a little more effort could have been made to explain how they did not seem to mess things up so much in the Clinton years. The best part of this book, is how it shows the Clinton working together so intimately. People who think they should have gotten divorced don't really understand the complex dynamics of their relationship.



3. I watched Ms Smith on book tv talking about this book. She was giving her lecture in front of a biased group of think tank people. Hint #1
   She is totally biased. She is a very good assassin and deserves whatever they paid her to write this attack piece. When a right wing think tank with board members from the health care industry invite an author to give a speech about her book....then buyer beware...DONT BUYT THIS BOOK.



4. In the past few months, I have been reading a lot about the Clintons. I wanted to know more about Hillary. After reading Carl Bernstein's "A Woman in Charge", I had a favorable impression of her, even though his account was not slanted in either direction.
   
   This book focuses more on the Hillary and Bill Clinton's dynamic. After reading this book, it is clear that you cannot study one without the other. They are truly each other's "other half".
   
   After reading this book, it is clear that they did run a co-presidency during Bill Clinton's 2 terms in office; and it is understandable to see why she refers to this time as the needed experience for her own presidency plans.
   
   In fact, the impression I got from this book is that even without the Monica Lewinsky and Whitewater incidents, Bill Clinton would still not have been an effective president without Hillary at his side. She brought the discipline that he needed to put into practice his political dreams.
   
   He on the other hand provides the political vision and spontaneity in thought, that she lacks.
   
   The book is successful in showing that Hillary is certainly capable of being our next president, but it also makes you wonder if you really want her to be. I felt that the book was not as objective as it could have been. I have always liked Bill Clinton, but I finished this book disgusted with his sexual behavior, and with the distinct feeling that they are both so political ambitious and self-centered, they will step on anyone, say and do anything to get elected. This book did not present the facts in an objective way as Bernstein's did, but in a more negatively-slanted manner. She mentions The Drudge Report without illuminating us on its creator, she talks about Mellon Scaife without clarifying how much money he gave to feed the right-wing conspiracy that was definitely working against the Clintons; and she mentions David Brock as a source against the Clintons, without mentioning that he later wrote a book describing in detail all the lies and manipulations that were exercised in the conspiracy that Brock himself confirmed to exist.
   
   Perhaps one of the more interesting "side effects" of this book for me, is the light it sheds on Al Gore. I had already gotten a whiff of his brilliance in Bill Clinton's autobiography, but in this book he is also shown to be a highly honorable, decent man. It once again, saddened me to reflect on how different the world would be today if he had been president these last 8 years.
   
   I have often wondered why Al Gore has not endorsed either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. In view of what I read in this book, I don't think he would endorse Hillary; but he would probably feel he was betraying the Clintons if he endorsed Obama, and so will refrain from doing so. In the end if he does endorse Obama, it will be because he truly believes in his candidacy and not for payback to the Clintons, even though he would be quite justified in doing so.
   
   In conclusion, reading this book has changed the way in which I view the Clintons. Although it is true that they were the victims of a right-wing conspiracy, they made many personal and political mistakes, that gravely affected the presidency. In the book someone is quoted as saying that Bill Clinton was a great president but not his presidency, and I think this is not only very accurate, but could also describe Hillary Clinton's presidency, if there's ever one.



5. What a surprise For Love of Politics was. I bought it as an alternative to the recent works Her Way and the one penned by Carl Bernstein. I hoped that it would be more objective than those two publications and I was not disappointed. This is an excellent history and happens to be one of the few books in my life that I could not put down.
   
   As for the author, before purchasing my copy I knew nothing about her. Indeed, I had never heard of Mrs. Bedell Smith before. All her bio online tells us is that she is a biographer who works at Vanity Fair. The endorsements listed on the back cover come from mainstream media sources like the Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, and The Washington Post so, upon receiving it in the mail, I was a little worried that the analysis would be slanted. I am pleased to report that my fears were unwarranted as For Love of Politics gives off no odor of bias whatsoever. Indeed, these chapters are bathed in neutrality. Clinton supporters might not like this but if justice offends then one must examine oneself.
   
   As a conservative who has read five or six rightist accounts of the Clintons, I can quickly grasp from what side of the political spectrum commentary comes; although, here I had no idea. Even after devouring all 450 of these pages, I am as befuddled in regards to what Mrs. Bedell Smith thinks as I was when I first opened it. I can think of no higher compliment to bestow upon a historian than saying that they are above political manipulation which Mrs. Bedell Smith definitely seems to be. Her evaluation of these primary source materials (original sources) was compulsively fair which is also true of the narrative on aggregate.
   
   The real art here is that she allows the Clintons to tell their own story...but what a story! The tale remains timely as Hillary may well be our next president. For Love of Politics was entertaining but incredibly educational as well. Old time students of the Clintons will learn new things and neophytes will have a chance to get beyond the soundbytes that saturated the two terms of our 42nd President. In my humble opinion, this is a must read.

5 comments about Grant and Twain: The Story of a Friendship That Changed America.

1. This book is a perfect introduction for beginning history buffs. It's simple and written for the average lay-person who may not know much about Twain or Grant (that would be me, by the way). It is a quick read and thoroughly enjoyable. My dad warned me that it would be a dry reading but I found it pleasurable.
   
   I don't know that much about U.S. Grant and Mark Twain, or also known as Samuel Clemens. I have read "Tom Sawyer" and "Huckleberry Finn" (but will admit that I read them as a kid and didn't understand all the nuances that Twain was referring to in this book, but plan to re-read them again sometime soon as an adult to see what I missed as a kid). But I know next to nothing about Ulysses Grant. All I know of him is that he was a great general and was one of the U.S. Presidents. And this book, written more about him and his last days, is absolutely fascinating in that regards. I was almost tempted to buy his memoirs when I was at Barnes & Noble yesterday. (I think my dad has the book already.)
   
   However, like a lot of the reviewers in here, I find the subtitle of this book a bit misleading. I kept waiting to hear more about this deep friendship between the two men and waited in vain. Yes, they were good friends, but there were little mentioned about their friendship. This book was more about their two life-stories between two different men who were born a decade a part. Their life-stories run parallel to one another and Twain met Grant close to the end of Grant's life-time.
   
   This is just a fascinating read on two men who shaped US history, one through war and one through his penmanship. Both have strong convictions and both seem to be men of interest.
   
   Like I said, this is perfect for the beginning history buff. If you're a history buff, this book is a little gem for the library as well.
   
   3/19/08



2. I decided to read Mark Perry's treatment of "Grant and Twain" for several reasons: First, I loved Perry's duo-bio of Marshall and Eisenhower; Second, I had read individual biographies of Ulysses S. Grant and Samuel L. Clemens a.k.a. Mark Twain already, having been intrigued by both men and their roles in the Civil War and Gilded Age eras of America. (Think of the old television series "Wild Wild West!" with anachronistic secret agent James West and side kick Artemis Gordon traveling around the growing country by that behemoth of high tech, The Railroad System, at the commission of President Grant himself, dealing with criminal arch genius villains and their Jules Verne-esque technologies in the middle of carpetbaggers and con men and normal everyday people trying to make an honest even moral life in it all).
   
   And so I did read "Grant and Twain" and I am glad I did and I find myself wanting to review it not just to share it but to draw out the uncomfortable and til now not quite articulated thoughts I had on Grant and Twain in my earlier readings of the details of their lives.
   
   And I DO recommend it and give it five stars. I give it five stars for a) Perry's lovely method and focus of comparing two famous men side by side for new perspectives, b) His revealing a, to me, hitherto unknown connection between the two men, c) His focus on the 15 or so months where Grant wrote his famous Memoirs (which I am now, finally, going to read) and Twain facilitated him, and d) Early hints in this Perry work of some themes about war and democracies more fully realized in the Marshall and Eisenhower work.
   
   The "dissonance" I allude to in the title of this review is that, while Grant and Twain are FAMOUS, their lives were full of downs and ups and arguably each died in unhappy circumstances. Grant died of cancer, using the writing of his memoirs to energize himself to see it through to the end as his last campaign, though incidentally creating what Perry characterizes as the United States' greatest work of nonfiction. Grant wrote his memoirs partly as a result of having been misled by a business partner and having to pay off debts to retain Grant's sense of dignity and honor. Oh yes, and Grant's eight years at president were a bit marred by constant financial scandals of government officials he'd naively trusted to be honorable in the positions he'd given them.
   
   Twain died of old age basically, but was embittered at the end of his life at the deaths of his wife and oldest daughter, and disgusted with the reliable dishonesty and exploitation and hypocrisy of men. And oh yes, near bankrupt from inept business dealings as well.
   
   So when I first read the bios of these two great men it bothered me... was dying in pain and embitterment a worthy end for great men like these? For heaven's sake what could the rest of us aspire to? Life is so complicated when there is not a 'lived happily ever after' ending to biographies like these.
   
   I could barely stand to re-read the "sad bad bits" in the stories of both men... skimming along quickly at times to the interesting action bits such as the when Grant decides to write his memoirs and who to have publish them; the point where Twain finds the inspiration needed to complete the story of Huckleberry Finn (quietly dedicated to General Grant at the very front, according to Perry's convincing analysis, who characterizes Huck Finn as the United States' greatest work of fiction).
   
   And yet having completed Perry's book, I have became satisfied and at peace with the mixed happinesses of the lives of both these great men. The Gilded Age was a time after the Civil War where the pursuit of the dollar became rampant. "The Rise of Silas Lapham" was published in this era by Twain's good friend William Dean Howells. Twain lived next door to Harriet Beecher Stowe, the author of "Uncle Tom's Cabin". The thrashing of the United States about attitudes to slavery and commerce continued to dominate this century.
   
   And yet in all this dissonance death and discord... two great men married, raised families, pursued careers, pursued concepts of professional honor and dignity, faced literal and figurative life and death often and unpredictably, and at the end, died. They "won" because they became "famous" and they became famous because their names became household words. But are they to be emulated for having become famous? Are they to be emulated for the clarity and brilliance, the insights of their most famous literary works? Are they to be emulated for the example they set of sheer persistence if not bravado making a life with what they were given. As all of us are challenged to do?
   
   Well done Grant!; well done Twain!; and well done Perry!



3. Mark Perry's GRANT AND TWAIN: THE STORY OF A FRIENDSHIP THAT CHANGED AMERICA is one of those books where the old adage, "never judge a book by looking at its cover," comes to mind. However, never judge a book by reading its title may be a better term. The subject matter of U.S. Grant and Mark Twain is quite interesting, and Perry parallels Grant and Twain's lives. Unfortunately, Perry does not show how the two men grew closer as friends during Grant's last few months of life in 1885. The entire aspect of the book concentrates on Grant's life and death experiences while completing his memoirs, and how Twain completes his most famous, THE ADVENTURES OF HUCKLEBERRY FINN. Possibly, this book is a tie into the story behind Twain's opening passage to Huck Finn (The book's premise almost resembles the Citizen Kane story, and how the movie revolves around the mystery behind Rosebud).
   
   Perry attempts to elaborate on the lives of these two monumental figures in American history. Perry offers a short biography of the two men, and Perry credits personal accounts from family and friends as to the friendship between the two men. However, the story revolving around Twain and Grant's friendship never quite meet in this book. There is a sense of disconnect in Perry's attempt to cite how their friendship changed America; the stories are separate from one another, and their is not one inkling of emotion on how one felt about the other. The narrative dwells on Twain helping Grant publish his memoirs.
   
   As a recommendation for reading about U.S. Grant or Mark Twain, GRANT AND TWAIN: THE STORY OF A FRIENDSHIP THAT CHANGED AMERICA, should be read after reading Grant's memoirs and Huckleberry Finn.



4. Mark Perry's "Grant and Twain" may well be the only work in which the personality of Mark Twain plays second fiddle to another. Whereas Twain was a giant of literature, Grant was a giant of humanity and this book offers plenty of evidence in that regard.
   
   U.S. Grant was such a mass of contradiction. He was a soldier with a distaste for war, yet he possessed little fear in battle and deployed his forces with vicious ferocity. He was a man of great ethical conviction, yet as president he headed one of the more corrupt administrations in our history. With a clarity no doubt inspired by Grant's writings, Perry explores those contradictions and how they made his relationship with Twain noteworthy.
   
   A lesser historian might have just focused on Grant's final year of life, and how he approached his final illness with dignity and stoicism. But Perry finds deeper meaning in the ways that the mutual admiration between Grant and Twain came to influence them both.
   
   Twain's effort to finish Huckleberry Finn dovetailed nicely with Grant's reluctance to write his memoirs. Grant's perspective on the South helped Twain flesh out some of the nuances within his work. The novel had stalled in the writing process and in fact had been shelved by Twain as having no promise. Meanwhile, Twain moved from basically looking for a publishing coup (that of winning the rights to Grant's memoirs) to a more nurturing role as writing mentor to the General. Twain's numerous business failures were legion, but Grant's writings were a notable exception. Perhaps that was due to the respect that Twain held for Grant prior to their association, or more a reflection of the admiration that he developed as the ailing ex-president applied himself to the task of putting his memories to paper.
   
   Grant began his memoirs after being diagnosed with cancer of the tongue. As time elapsed, the effort to give his perspective on his military career and the Civil War became a counterpoint to his illness; perhaps even to the point of prolonging his life somewhat.
   
   Grant and Twain is excellent history. It's informative, readable and enjoyable. And to it's credit, this book will (should) foster renewed interest in reading Huckleberry Finn and Personal Memoirs by U.S. Grant.



5. Grant and Twain is a good book, informative, insightful, and concise enough.
   
   Mark Perry starts by giving us very good sketches of the lives of the two principals up to the point of the story, including some surprising (for me) details about their personal lives. He then goes into their relationship, how it came to be, and the affect it had on their great works of literature. The books influenced by their time together, Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and Grant's Personal Memoirs, are considered to be classics and the best that either of the authors ever produced. In fact, some think that Huckleberry Finn is the best American novel ever, and that Personal Memoirs (about the Mexican and Civil Wars) is the best American book ever written on military events. Perry records many conversations Grant and Twain had with each other and with the other folks surrounding them, including families and associates. It makes you feel like you are there, and gives some personal insight into what these gentlemen were really like. We find that they were both quite remarkable as private figures as well as public figures. The story of their relationship rides to a great extent on the heroic drama of Grant racing to finish his book before dying of cancer, to ensure the financial security of his family. Perry, at the same time, paints a fascinating sketch of what Twain called the Gilded Age, a time of great industrial progress along with great corruption in the U.S.
   
   It was a thoroughly enjoyable read.

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 Final Days.

1. The American body politic cuts the president a great deal of error slack. We witnessed that during the Watergate years of Richard Nixon and we see it again in the presidency of George W. Bush. Both instances also point out one major fact of the American political landscape. No matter what they achieve or how high their popularity, if a President does the wrong things, they can crash down with great force.
   This book is one of the greatest political chronicles of all time. So great that no fiction writer could possibly create a story with such dynamism, force and sheer magnitude. Woodward and Bernstein were the reporting team that kept the Watergate story alive and ultimately led to Nixon's resignation. In this book, they describe the final days of the Nixon presidency and how the people involved tried to salvage what value they could and move on to the next phase.
   The greatest message of the book is the demonstration of how powerful and resilient the American political system is. Despite the slow pace of discovery, tortuous maneuvers by the prosecution and countermoves by the Nixon defense team, the system worked and worked well. The highest government official in the United States was a party to criminal acts and was removed without a shot being fired. There are few countries in the world where that could have taken place. It is one more demonstration of how extraordinary the writers of the American constitution were. Despite all of the changes in how the world works, advances in technology and other marvels of the age, a system put in place nearly two hundred years earlier functioned to near perfection.



2. This is a fascinating book regardless of your political persuasion or feelings about Richard Nixon. The detailed account of the last days of the administration reveals the human side of the names and faces you saw on the news everyday back then or read about in other books since then.



3. This gripping narrative takes us inside the White House during the last days of the Nixon administration in 1974. From inside we see President Nixon, his advisors, family, and congressional allies trying to stave off his inevitable downfall from the Watergate scandal. Readers see how Nixon tried to claim executive privilege to avoid releasing the "smoking gun" tape that proved he'd ordered the cover-up. Even after he surrendered the tape (by Supreme Court order) Nixon refused to resign until his fast-deserting congressional allies warned him that his impeachment and conviction were now certain. The authors credit General Alexander Haig for holding the White House together as Nixon unraveled, but pay less attention to Vice President Gerald Ford, a non-participant except for later when he gave Nixon a questionable full pardon. There's also a review of the two-year scandal and the President's adversaries (Leon Jaworski, Sam Ervin, John Dean, etc.) but this narrative is based inside the White House. Readers see that Nixon was very capable but also a lying, crooked tax cheat, one whose administration was awash in payoffs, hush money, bribes, and political espionage.
   
   Authors Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein first uncovered the Watergate Scandal as reporters for the Washington Post in June of 1972. Having begun Nixon's downfall, perhaps it's fitting that they should chronicle that descent with this superb narrative, plus their earlier effort ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN.



4. I was absorbed by this book. It's story is so compelling and amazing, I couldn't put it down. I also appreciate the writing style that made difficult content easier to understand and follow. I consider this one of the best books I have ever read and an incredible insight into the Nixon mind.



5. 
   a good historical review of Nixon. Especially how tape crazy he was. A little tough reading in few pages but picks up after a while. It should be required reading for college to show what cn really happen in the White House.

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.

5 comments about The Wit & Wisdom of Ronald Reagan.

1. An amazing President with a keen sense of what to say and when to say it! His quips and one-liners were timely, humurous and extremely insightful! This book was a pleasure to read and will remain on my bookshelf for many years to come.



2. Those of us who lived through The Regan Years know what an icon is and what Regan brought to the office. This book gives the reader an insight into not only his political life, but his private life. Love him or not you will realize what made him tick. He lent the aspect of "Class" to the office giving people the chance to laugh with him and say "Right on". This book should become a classic.



3. Great quotes from our greates communicator, gives an insite to his sense of humor. I was expecting a little more to the book, more pages and anedotes.



4. This book is a mere fictional account of a president who was twice-elected by a near-braindead electorate who in 1979, quickly began to grow impatient with Jimmy Carter's lack of charisma and soon confused the 1980 campaign with the Oscars and awarded the gold statuette/the presidency to a man who was probably born with Alzheimer's Disease. But in their zealous haste, they quickly forgot about carefully considering more realistic, long-term policies that could serve THEM well, such as health care, tax cuts for THEM and not the rich, and perhaps a complete moratorium on immigration that continues to bloat an already overcrowded nation to this very day. But instead, the mindless electorate allowed itself to be seduced by the rhetoric of a well-groomed nitwit who overwhelmingly fooled them with ease with his prowess as an actor, and as a result, the idiots went on to gleefully elect him as the Incompetent-In-Chief beginning in 1980. And his oratory, which seduced millions of such mindless, blind flag-wavers, involved his reciting lines that were written for him to the the appaluse of said morons who had by that time, read too many Superman comic books and cheered as The Acting President hollowly insisted that "Government is the problem..." So hence, Reagan became their new Superman minus the costume. And as the S&L scandal came to tarnish America's image and the Iran-Contra scandal took hold, this man could not for anything, coherently answer a single question posed to him by the press for the duration of his entire presidency. Moreover, if it were not for Peggy Noonan, his speech writer, we more than likely would never had to have endured the likes of The Acting President. Perhaps Peggy herself will one day seek higher office in the Land That Time Should Forget.



5. If you love and miss Ronald Reagan, this is a book that will feed your nostalgia while providing a warm glow to your day. The author has been a speechwriter and the author of several books, so he knows how to select great words. James C. Humes organizes the book in eight short chapters.
   
   Chapter 1 provides quotations from the Gipper. They are a sentence or two on a wide range of topics (and are arranged alphabetically by topic). Chapter 2 is a collection of quips and jokes and also organized by topic. Chapter 3 provides brief comments by Reagan on world leaders and a few historic figures. Chapter 4 presents brief statements by friends and enemies about Reagan. For example, we are reminded that it was Margaret Thatcher who said he won the Cold War without firing a shot and Pat Schroeder who called him the Teflon President.
   
   Chapter 5 consists of short anecdotes about Reagan's life and career. Chapter 6 puts some of Reagan's best zingers in their true historical context (which the media tries to twist and distort and forget - because they are invested in the notion that Reagan was a dunce. History is taking a much different assessment of the man and his two terms as President). Chapter 7 presents some of Reagan's best stories. They reveal a great deal about his beliefs and his character. Chapter 8 presents excerpts from his best speeches and provides some information about the context in which the speech was given and its effects. Again, this helps undo some of the work the liberals in the media do to insult and undermine his memory.
   
   While much of the material Reagan used was not original with him (some of it is), he delivered it masterfully and had keen insight on when to use it for best effect. This book is not only an enjoyable read, it makes a great gift for anyone in your life who is fond of Reagan or someone you want to learn about how great and effective a President he was.
   
   Reviewed by Craig Matteson, Ann Arbor, MI

5 comments about George Washington: The Founding Father (Eminent Lives).

1. This is a small book, both in dimensions (5 1/4" x 7 3/8") and length (126pp), so it is a relatively quick read. It seems to be well-researched and is quite readable, as is to be expected of anything by the esteemed Dr. Johnson.
   
   Surprisingly for something so short, the book does span Washington's entire life. It begins by giving some background information on the preceding two or three generations on his father's side, then proceeds with his birth, family situation, and education. Sources for information on Washington's childhood are sparse, so this section is understandably thin. Johnson does take time, though, to dispel a couple prominent myths about his subject.
   
   The book's chapters are as follows:
   
   One: A Young Gentleman's Youth in Virginia
   Two: A Gallant Young Colonel and His Rich Wife
   Three: Slaveowner, Agricultural Pioneer, Builder
   Four: Commander in Chief and Victor
   Five: Creating a Nation: Theory
   Six: Creating a Nation: Practice
   Seven: Last Years
   
   As might be guessed from the chapter titles, the structure of the book is generally chronological. Johnson ably weaves in other information that doesn't necessarily belong to a specific period in Washington's life (e.g., his developing thoughts on the socio-economic and governmental future of the new nation). There is a good mix of information on Washington's private life & business dealings, as well as his military & governmental service. Naturally, some subjects get more attention than others, and every reader will wish that something in particular had received more (or less). But, I thought Johnson did a fairly balanced job, while understandably weighted a bit more on the years 1775 to 1797 (i.e., Revolutionary War thru Constitutional Convention thru Presidency).
   
   There are a couple of typos, which should have been caught by a copy editor, but that is to be expected in any book, really. I noticed a couple places where the author repeated a piece of information. For example, with regard to Washington's physical presence, chapters one & two both quote Benjamin Latrobe saying, "Washington had something uncommonly majestic and commanding in his walk, his address, his figure and his countenance." I found this a little annoying, but not really a big deal.
   
   There is a brief bibliography of recommended reading at the end but no end/footnotes or index. In a more comprehensive work, this would bother me, but not for something that is meant to be such a brief introduction to the life of the subject.
   
   Overall, a fine introduction to the life of George Washington, and definitely recommended.
   
   Content: 4.5
   Style & Structure: 4
   Average: 4.25, rounded down to 4



2. Johnson appears to be quite the patriot. It's natural that he would offer a very favorable position of Washington in this narrative. As an African American and a student of history, it's hard for me to swallow this portrait of Washington whole. Johnson at times snidely derides recent historical efforts to show negative aspects of Washington's slaveholding that undermine his eventual emancipation of slaves. Johnson also appears to be very favorable toward centralizing federalists such as Hamilton, who he gives credit for saving the American economy, and Washington at the expense of Jefferson and Madison. In Johnson's view, it's Washington who's doing the work and saving the country and those idealistic Francophile Democrats who are flirting with its destruction. As one of those who would have been 3/5 of a person back in the Constitutional times, I have to be a little more critical of the compromises that created the racial conflict. I do applaud Johnson's recognition that Washington missed some opportunities to stem the tide of slavery as president.
   
   The best part of Johnson's analysis is the compare and contrast aspects to Napoleon. Showing the tightrope that Washington walks between choosing democracy that sacrifices Napoleon's power and seeking a strong executive branch that occasionally exceeds Napoleon's power is very helpful indeed. Napoleon is only as strong as his last battle. Washington is always as strong as his elected position and well-earned prestige. There's a very cogent statement in the middle of the book at how the British were stupid in not offering Washington a major position in their military soon after his successes in the French and Indian War. As we reflect on our military and politicians in present times, it's important that we realize that when we become self-satisfied and scorn merit for promotions, we risk birthing the revolutionaries who may overturn our social order and way of life.
   
   Washington's quite a figure and this is a satisfactory introduction. I look forward to pursuing more of the resources described in other reviews such as Giordano's especially helpful review recommending David Hackett Fisher's "Washington's Crossing".
   
   3.5 stars
   
   --SD



3. A fascinating look into one of the most fascinating and important characters in American history - George Washington. If you're looking for a good, brief overview of why George Washington was such an integral part of the foundation of our country, this little book is a good place to start. Johnson examines the early life of Washington, including his early military career and how that coupled with his surveying acumen played greatly in this vision for this nation. The one concept I took away from this book was that Washington was a man of vision. He was constantly looking westward with an eye on expansion and the English and French efforts to contain the early colonies was a key factor in the revolution. Washington was also a man of significant means and status in the early colonies - but, one of the greatest commentaries on his character is his constant refusal to remain as president beyond the first two terms. He was a man who had a vision for a great republic and a man who surrounded himself with the best and the brightest of his day. Washington was a great leader and was the man for the job for just such a time.



4. Paul Johnson has written one superb book, The Birth of the Modern, one monstrosity, Intellectuals, and quite a shelf of books well worth reading even when they are blinkered by ideology. This chapbook biography of George Washington, unfortunately, is one of his shallower efforts.
   Johnson declares his intention of portraying Washington as less of "a remote and mysterious figure" than others have. The Washington that he gives us, however, is such a paragon that I for one long for a little flesh to contain all that noble blood. Johnson's Washington is above all an English land-owner of the early 18th C, a properly insular squire, a gentleman of much Whiggish convictions but Tory instincts, much like Johnson himself. It's not an inconsistent portrayal. However, Johnson is dead wrong about some very significant aspects of Washington's thought and about pre-revolutionary America.
   
   Johnson correctly focuses on Washington's self-interest in westward expansion of Virginia into the Ohio Valley as a prime reason for the rebellion against English rule. But with his ever-present British chauvinism, Johnson completely misrepresents the situations of the French and the Indians in the 1760s, and fails to grasp the important conflicts that already separated Americans of the seacoast like Washington from Americans of the interior. For a thorough and intelligent examination of these matters, I strongly recommend: The Middle Ground, by Richard White.
   
   Johnson is quite far from the mark on the question of the role of slavery among the causes of the revolution. His is the old-fashioned apologetic position, that slavery was already on the wane at the time of Washington, that the Founding Fathers foresaw its gradual extinction, and that only the cotton gin made later events tragic. In fact, the defense of slavery as an economic institution and the fear of British emancipationism were significant motivators for Southern participation in the Revolution. See: Forced Founders, by Woody Holton
   
   Johnson is also altogether too willing to credit Washington with sincere humantitarian impulses toward his own slaves. The truth is that Washington took less-than-kindly steps to retrieve runaways, was outraged by the efforts of the English to recruit slaves to run away and fight against their 'masters', and made every possible effort to seize runaways and free Blacks from their English protectors, after the end of fighting, before such 'property' could be carried beyond his reach. For a powerful account of the Revolutionaries' hypocrisy toward the rights of man, see: Rough Crossing, by Simon Schama, which also tells the story of the fate of the expatriated African-Americans in Canada and eventually in Sierra Leone.
   
   One amusing aspect of Johnson's book, by the way, is his hardly-concealed contempt for Thomas Jefferson -- another of those "Intellectuals" Johnson so thoroughly detests. Washington apparently developed quite an open scorn for Jefferson also, in his later years, a scorn I've come to share with both the author and his subject. The title to read on this matter: Jefferson's Secrets, by Michael Burstein.



5. This is a great small book on Washington, things I didn,t know about him.
   Easy to read, too, in a short time.

5 comments about The Preacher and the Presidents: Billy Graham in the White House.

1. Although I've always known that Billy Graham was a charismatic evangelist, I didn't realize just how spiritual, humble, forgiving, and influential he was until reading this book. Not only was he allowed into the "inner sanctums" of powerful United States politicians and other movers and shakers, but he was also admitted entry into places in the world where others would not have been allowed. At the same time, he cared about "the least of these" and always felt his #1 mission in life was to spread the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
   
   Although he could easily hobnob with the presidents and their wives, he never lost his humility and the sure knowledge that God is in control of our lives. Whether golfing with a Bush, swimming with Johnson, or praying with Nixon, he did so in a spiritual role, not a political one. As the authors bring out, Graham didn't need fortune or fame. He saw himself as their pastor, their advocate with the Father. Presidents aren't as free as the rest of us to go to the Baptist church around the corner or the Catholic one downtown, so Billy Graham felt it was his responsibility to go to them...and go he did. Plus, I learned that no matter who the president was, Graham believed that he was God's divine choice and was thus supportive, even after Clinton's misdeeds and Nixon's Watergate situation.
   
   The most recurrent theme that I picked up is that regardless of what he was exposed to, Dr. Graham remained the evangelist sure of his purpose. Interestingly, however, the pundits and press and other religious leaders all had their criticisms...even when he was clearly doing what the scriptures admonish us to do. They even criticized him for being too forgiving, too conciliatory, not judgmental enough. HUH???
   
   Sure of his mission, I've got a feeling that Dr. Graham doesn't worry about such criticisms. His message is that everyone wants to be loved and that God loves us each and everyone, even the ones who disappoint, hurt, or criticize us.



2. A fascinating read and deservedly praised, I found this book hard to put down until Chapter 31 on Billy's acquaintance with the Clintons. That chapter had a false ring - a different tone from the rest, that smacked me in the face. With so few comments there in Billy's words, as were heavily used in the chapters about other presidents, the writers droned on and on in their attempt to paint the Clintons as good as the rest. After their fairly even-handed (and exhaustive) work on both the humanity and duplicity of Nixon earlier in the book, I was unpleasantly amazed. Of course, most of the others are dead and gone, while Mrs. Clinton is running for a third term as co-president, and this makes it worse. The chapter sticks out as an effort to rub some of Billy's good character onto the Clintons by association. It didn't work.
   
   Several times during that chapter, I did put it down in disgust, wondering what happened here? I know spin when I see it. For what purpose did the writers, after relating so much that sounded genuine about all the presidents up to that point, think they needed to con readers into accepting that; while we were subjected to an amoral sex offender and his socialist wife for eight years, they were really just as normal, good Christians as all the others. Pandering to them in such a book included the writers' insinuations that Billy Graham supported the Clintons and approved, for example, of abortion and homosexuality along with them, which he emphatically did not. The way the writers gloss over the criminal conduct of the Clintons, a pass they certainly didn't give Nixon, defending and excusing them on and on ad nauseum, speaks volumes. The comparatively few words of Billy himself on that period, when it was he being interviewed for the book, is noticeable, too, in a look at the chapter. Note that Hillary bragged on several occasions what a personal help Billy had been to her, with no corroboration from him other than a meeting in 2005 in which he mentioned "private time". Yet by this point, we know his own self-imposed rules about that. Hillary's stories of "huddling with" Billy are as blatant lies as so many of her other stories, judging by what Billy himself says. But her stories are presented as accurate with no input from him, in contrast to the rest of the book.
   
   In giving the writers license, Billy was too trusting - as he often was because of his basic love for and trust in people. But I was so put off by this whitewash, I had to put the book down for a few days. Later I glanced back through the chapters, because I had also been struck by the short space given to President Reagan's term in the White House after he and Billy had been friends for 30 years. Yes, I was right - amazing how little space was given to those more recent years, compared to presidents before him.
   
   I learned a lot that was new; Carter's dislike for Billy despite professing the same religious beliefs, LBJ's real fondness for him. I was entranced by the new look at Eisenhower, saddened at the way Nixon took advantage of a genuine friendship, pleased to learn things I hadn't known about Bush 41 and the whole family. For the writers to push their personal bias in my face near the end came close to spoiling a great read for me. It is a wonderful book except for Chapter 31.



3. This biographical piece is considerably different from other works written about Billy Graham's life. Just As I Am (autobiography) and other histories of the Billy Graham Crusades evolve into hagiographies where Graham has faults but these are downplayed. This book tries to be as balanced as possible portraying some glaring weaknesses such as Graham's heavily favoring various presidents and presidential candidates, even in public, while not legalistically endorsing them.
   
   The insights into various presidencies is also very informative and shows them in ways that are probably consistent with what can be publically known but with nuances that may have been previously unknown. Certainly other Graham biographies have not entered into this level of detail.
   
   On balance, this is a genuine attempt to present Graham as he really is, particularly in relation to the presidents of the past 60 years. Those who are looking for a spiritually uplifting journey may be disappointed. That does not appear to be the point of this book.
   
   But for those who are not fans of Graham, and would like to know him better, this limited biography is very valuable



4. Given the enormous financial and investigative resources available to Time magazine reporters Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy, it shouldn't be too much to expect historical accuracy in this biography. Then again, Time has been an uncritical cheerleader for Graham's ministry since the day in 1950 when publisher Henry Luce visited the young minister, then a houseguest at South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond's mansion, and decided to join William Randolph Hearst's efforts to "puff Graham." Time has a substantial investment in Graham's ministry, having run more than 600 stories about his career. Unfortunately, historical accuracy isn't one of the strong points of a book that is otherwise a pleasant enough read. People make mistakes, of course, but when they tend to fall in the same direction, one begins to suspect a hidden agenda. On the other hand, simple sloppiness can't be ruled out, as when they place Graham at Bob Jones College in Greenville, S.C., for his first year of higher education. When Graham dropped out during his freshman year that school was located in Cleveland, Tenn. The subtitle tells you all you need to know about the story between the covers. The book begins with Graham's rocky relationship with Harry S. Truman and ends with his fatherly embrace of George W. Bush. Those attracted to the preacher will find nothing to dislike, but also little that is new. This is the same generous tale told by Graham's publicity team in countless books, articles, movies, advertisements, TV appearances and, of course, crusades. According to this account, from Eisenhower forward, all of the presidents have sought Graham's counsel in varying degrees, and discovered a deep well of comfort and spiritual wisdom. The authors make mild forays into Graham's political mistakes and spend a long while on his purported close friendship with and later betrayal by Nixon, but the poking is gentle and Graham emerges as an older but wiser hero. The mistakes and omissions are telling, however. Careful to paint Nixon as the agent of darkness, they write: "The beloved Ike, Nixon charged, was `a far more complex and devious man than most people realized.'" Thus they imply that Nixon was even nasty to sweet old Dwight Eisenhower. But this can only be a deliberate misquote. In his book SIX CRISES Nixon actually concluded the sentence "and in the best sense of those words." His intention was to PRAISE Eisenhower. It is important for Nixon to be the sinner because the preacher the authors have chosen to present was supposedly suckered into long-term support for Tricky Dick, and was devastated when he learned that Nixon had deceived him. Much to Graham's enduring dismay, his back-room politicking had been tape-recorded and would come back to embarrass him over and over again through ensuing years. Nor have all of Nixon's notorious tapes yet been released. Graham's support for civil rights is painted as enthusiastic and heartfelt, but his actual record is far from clear. The authors repeat Graham's assertion that Martin Luther King, Jr., endorsed his arms-length approach to integration, without corroborating evidence, and neglect Graham's reaction to "I Have a Dream" in 1963. Graham conducted a press conference the next morning and said, "Only when Christ comes again will the little white children of Alabama walk hand in hand with little black children." Concerning King the authors also claim that he delivered volumes by Gandhi disguised in Billy Graham book jackets to imprisoned Freedom Riders in Mississippi. This is another example of either the authors' incautious research or eagerness to hitch Graham's wagon to King's star. According to Taylor Branch, writing in PILLAR OF FIRE (which the authors cite as their reference), the transporter of disguised books was Rev. Edwin King, a white preacher of no known relation to MLK. Lest it be overlooked elsewhere as it is in THE PREACHER AND THE PRESIDENTS, Graham's nonprofit enterprises have profited nicely from the high profile that presidential palavering has, in no small part, afforded him. While his annual personal income from the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association only totalled a bit over $500,000 in recent years, he enjoyed a well-appointed "log cabin" estate in Montreat, N.C., with high tech communications gear and an indoor swimming pool, a vacation home in the posh country club community of Pauma Valley, California, and controlled tax-exempt properties worth hundreds of millions of dollars in North Carolina alone. Nor do these figures include income from books, recordings and television appearances, and may not include the receipts of the individual LLCs created for each of his crusades. To top it off, he bragged that he "never paid for a suit or a hotel room," though he seems to have preferred lodging in various mansions, both public and private, to the common discomforts of life in commercial rooms. THE PREACHER AND THE PRESIDENTS offers comforting fiction disguised as history. It is, without doubt, a book written for believers.



5. This book is a must read for people who want to learn about ultimate influence

2 comments about Rebel Giants: The Revolutionary Lives of Abraham Lincoln & Charles Darwin.

1. Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln are fascinating historic figures by themselves, but this book takes a unique perspective in comparing the two men. While they came from very dissimilar backgrounds, their lives shared many commonalities and they both have left indelible marks on history. This was a fascinating book and I recommend it to anyone who is interested in history or in this two great men.



2. Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin, although both famous, would not be said by many to have a lot in common. David R. Contosta disagrees, and "Rebel Giants: The Revolutionary Lives of Abraham Lincoln & Charles Darwin" is his reasoning why. The two figures, hugely impactful in history, were born on the same day, disliked their fathers, lost their mothers at a young age, suffered from depression, and other eerie similarities. Hoping to give readers a more comprehensive understanding of both men by examining their similarities and differences, "Rebel Giants: The Revolutionary Lives of Abraham Lincoln & Charles Darwin" is an excellent pick for any community library collection dedicated to history.

5 comments about The Natural: The Misunderstood Presidency of Bill Clinton.

1. Joe Klein takes a detailed, dispassionate look at the Clinton Presidency. He takes great pains to put it in perspective, both generational (Baby Boomers take over from the WWII Generation) and international (pre-9/11). He acknowledges that it took Clinton a while to get a handle on being President, and bemoans how much was opportunity was squandered because of the President's own failings. Yes, Klein opines (and I agree) that Bill Clinton is one of the most staggeringly bright and naturally gifted men to ever hold the White House. But he also nails Clinton on character issues, even beyond Monica Lewinsky (once referring to the President as "a bimbo when he comes to flattery"). When you're done with the book, you appreciate all the nuanced things Clinton accomplished, but you're heartbroken over what he could have done, if not for the inexcusable distractions.



2. This short, fast-moving book on Bill Clinton forsakes a historian's detailed and measured treatment to get at the essence of this man's presidency. Because it's more like a magazine article than a doorstop, you're likely to actually read it, maybe in one sitting.
   
   The book has become timely again, in light of Hillary Clinton's presidential bid. The "Hillaryland" liberal faction split the White House of her husband, elected as a "Third Way" moderate. Her premature insistence on addressing health care was the most grievous policy error of her husband's presidency. And Hillary's unbelievably complicated proposal, concocted in secret, showed no political sense. Aides described how Hillary could drive Bill, with a phone call, from a good mood to a staff-chastising tantrum, and how they distinguish those tantrums by the tone of his shouting.
   
   She comes across as the more conspiratorial and paranoid of the two, an uncompromising liberal true-believer pursuing a scorched-earth policy against enemies. Sort of like, uh, that president she helped impeach, Richard Nixon. You wonder how she, and this country, would fare with her in the Oval Office.
   
   Klein does not see this as a sham marriage, though. While ever aware they might be playing him, he sees them as devoted to each other.
   
   One of his best chapters describes how Washington's culture of political warfare began with Watergate, intensified through the endless Iran-Contra investigations and the attack-ad era and culminated in the Gingrich speakership and the relentless Whitewater, Paula Jones and Lewinsky investigations.
   
   Clinton failed his potential for several reasons. The placid Nineties were too tame for a truly great presidency. After the healthcare miscalculation, he never seized another opportunity to remake major domestic policy. And the impeachment scandal fatally distracted him in 1998 when he had the budget surplus and standing with Congress to make a real mark by fixing Social Security.
   
   Like a charcoal sketcher, Klein has a fine eye for quick but telling detail. He sees Clinton as needy of praise and human contact. He'd keep dazed listeners awake into the wee hours, talking more and more intensely, unwilling to let the moment go.
   
   Klein describes bowling with him one midnight just before the New Hampshire primary, after the candidate enters but finds the emptied-out joint devoid of hands to shake. Klein, awaiting his turn in the lane, would find Clinton standing so close he pressed up against him, seeming to crave human contact. Clinton's intense but flawed humanity is what makes him interesting, and endlessly so.



3. The book shows that a journalist wrote it. That wasn't meant to be as backhanded as it seems. The stories about Clinton et al are those we can recall, this isn't a back room exposé full of conspiracy theory.
   A good journalist (at least) writes as if he has something to tell you. Only in the last chapter does Klein really subject the reader to an opinion piece.
   If you were alive at all for the eight years of Clinton's presidency then...no, none of this is really "new" or "insightful" but I, for one, found it none the less interesting.



4. I have to admit that Klein's book about the Clinton presidency is one of the most objective accounts of Clinton I have ever seen. Although friendly with the ex-prez, Klein pulls no punches and presents Clinton's presidency warts and all. In the end we all know what Clinton did, but Klein gives us more insight as to the "whys" of his actions. Is Clinton the greatest president of all time? No. Is he the worst? Not even close. If all books on presidents were written as objectively as this one, we would all have a better understanding of what makes these men tick.
   Is Clinton a better president than W? You tell me: peace and prosperity vs. war, a declining stock market, and skyrocketing gas prices.



5. I got the impression that Mr. Klein just threw together a bunch of odds & ends he had left over from another book and notes -- the way they made the movie "Midway" out of edit-outs from "Tora, Tora, Tora!"