5 comments about Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography.

1. I suppose I can be forgiven for being just a bit skeptical of a book about a radical Arab written by a couple American Jews. Could it ever have any claim to objectivity? Maybe in an American bookstore, I would have been inclined to pass it up. But I live in Beijing, China, where such books don't grow on trees. A Chinese friend put the book in my hands. I have been a bit puzzled and curious about the way Arafat is viewed as a revolutionary hero in China, yet China strives to maintain good relations with Israel, a nation whose very existence Arafat never accepted. So I read the book.
   
   Actually, I was pleasantly surprised. I'm not saying that the book is totally objective in every respect. But it is a very well-written discussion of the relationship problems Arafat had, both with Israel, and with the leaders of the Arab nations, who were supposed to be his supporters. Bottom line: Arafat didn't get along with anyone.
   
   In one sense, Arafat made this book for the writers, because he was so consistent in his complete inability to come to some kind of workable agreement with Israel. His whole life and work epitomized Abba Eban's statement about the Palestinians, who "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." Personally, I don't think the statement is entirely fair when applied to the Palestinians, but it certainly is an appropriate statement about Arafat, who never gave up fighting the nation with whom he, more than any Arab before him, had the opportunity to make peace. If the peacemakers are blessed, Arafat is among the most cursed of all men. So how did such an ornery cuss gain such prominence? Part of his success is certainly due to his knack for self-promotion, and the brazenness of his contempt for Israel. But I must also admit that I fear much of his prominence came from the lack of regard for the plight of the Palestinians by Israel. Sarah didn't want Ishmael in her house, so the bondwoman had to leave. Israel seems to have the same feeling about the Palestinians. They shouldn't be part of the family. Israelis often protest when I talk about this, because (and they are right about this) Palestinians living in Israel have the same rights as Jews. The problem, though, is that many of the Palestinians do not live in Israel proper, and thus are not entitled to those rights. And the Israelis certainly have not invited them all in. That, really, is the point. I don't want to get carried away on that point, but it has to be mentioned in order to keep this in perspective. What I mean is that we should not blame Arafat for all the problems between the Palestinians and the Jews. He did not create the situation he so hopelessly mismanaged. Arafat's problem is that he just could not bring himself to accept any arrangement that allowed Israel to exist.
   
   This is a good book. It is very negative, but I don't think unfairly so. I am assuming that this book is not your only source of information on the whole Israeli--Palestinian problem. I do feel that the Israelis have not cared enough about the plight of the Palestinians. This book does not stand alone. There needs to be much more exploration into the problem as a whole. But as far as Arafat himself is concerned, the authors did an excellent job of showing how much he stood in the way of progress on this issue, and the extent to which he was responsible for promoting violence even to the end of his life. As historians, their job is not finished. But as prosecutors, they won their case hands down.



2. This was an extremely biased account of Arafat and should not be ready by anyone seeking an unbiased biography. Throughout the book, the authors repeatedly condemn Arafat's refusal to agree to a peace deal, even though every deal offered him fell short of Israel's compliance with international law and withdrawal from Palestinian territories it occupied in 1967. While Arafat had many legitimate failures and weaknesses, blaming him for Israel's occupation is laughable and that seems to be the sole objective of this book.
   
   On p. 162, the authors explain that, "...many Palestinians did not believe Israel would ever accept reasonable terms and that the peace process was a trick to ensure their permanent subjugation. While such beliefs were reinforced by specific Israeli actions...they far exceeded the evidence. To think that [Israeli government] wanted to keep control over the West Bank and Gaza Strip permanently was a serious misconception, which continued to have enormous negative consequences for Palestinian interests." I found it incredible for this claim to be made without addressing Israeli settlements and Israel's systematic support of them. Illegal settlement construction has been funded by the Israeli government and Israeli officials indicated they have no intention of ever relinquishing all settlements on occupied territory. I therefore disagree with the authors' claim that Palestinians' beliefs far exceeded the evidence and that it was a misconception to perceive permanent settlement construction as Israel's permanent control of the West Bank and Gaza.
   
   On p. 248, the authors state, "By signing some variation on the offers made by Barak and Clinton, Arafat could have ended the occupation, removed all settlements from Palestinian-ruled territory, freed prisoners in Israeli hands, and controlled the al-Aqsa mosque. By refusing to do so he was ensuring that all these problems continued into the indefinite future." The truth is that Arafat was never presented an offer that would have removed all settlements from Palestinian land. Notice the use of the words "Palestinian-ruled territory." Israel proposed to annex the larger settlements on occupied land, placing them into "Israeli-ruled territory" and Arafat rightfully said no. There is no mention of the fact that the occupation consists of war crimes, that the settlements violate international law, and that Israel's colonization-like behavior ensures that these problems will continue into the indefinite future. The authors' bias consistently manipulates facts to make them appear consistent with their views of Arafat and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
   
   The last two chapters of the book are dedicated to spinning an argument of why the continued occupation is solely the fault of Arafat and not Israel. According to the authors, Arafat could have ended the occupation, therefore it is his fault that the occupation continues. A ridiculous claim considering the occupation would immediately cease if Israel simply makes a commitment of adhering to international law and leaves the occupied territories. It is also an unfair level of blame cast upon Arafat, considering that all of the "generous" peace deals offered by Israel consisted of keeping some of Palestinian territory, keeping settlements on Palestinian land, and refusing the right of return to Palestinian refugees- all violations of international law. Arafat was indeed a difficult man for Israel to make a deal with, but blaming him for the occupation caused by Israel's military aggression and biblical claims to Palestinian land is ridiculous.



3. This is a very good book about a very bad man.
   
   Even if you are not pro-Israel, what people don't realize is that Yasir Arafat was killing American's way back in the 1960's and 1970's.
   
   He was responsible for the killing if US Ambassador Cleo Noel Jr. in 1973.
   
   Arafat is evil, pure evil. This book will show you why.



4. "Biographies" like these are made by collecting newspaper clippings about someone you have never met and paraphrasing them. The usual subjects are pop stars and Hollywood actors. No interviews, no original material of any sort, and certainly no enlightenment. A hard-line journalistic pamphlet.
   
   Update May 6, 2006: I am amused to see that a hit-squad has been systematically giving negative points to all reviews on this page which appear to be pro-Arafat. This to miss the point -- being pro-Arafat or anti-Arafat does not make this any the less a dull and polemical pseudo-biography which tells us nothing other than what (as another reviewer has said) we already know, that right-wing Israeli journalists loathed him.
   
   But to the main issue -- there is a far more interesting and revelatory biography of Arafat available now in paperback, "Arafat: From Defender to Dictator" by Said K. Aburish. This scathing book written by a Palestinian insider will tell you a great deal more about Arafat's early life, and why his leadership of the Palestinian cause went so badly wrong in the decade before his death. Check the Aburish book out, probably the definitive statement of the agonized, frustrated way Palestinian intellectuals view Arafat.



5. THis book was one of the worst bios I have ever read, it was increadably biased, it almost sounded like it was written by fox news. Very little reaserch went into this book, the authors gave their opionion at every turn

5 comments about A Charge to Keep: My Journey to the White House.

1. I've never seen another book that gets mostly just 1-star or 5-star ratings. That's how it manages the 3-star average. Don't bother reading the reviews. They depend only the political views of the writer, and not really on the book at all.
   
   However, it's worth noting that by far most of the bad grammar and spelling in the reviews are from the voters who gave the book 5 stars. I can't imagine that that has ever happened with another book.



2. This book was written during the pivotal time in Bush's life between serving as Governor of Texas and choosing to run for the U.S. Presidency.
   
   Without checking his facts or follow-through, the book fairly outlines several topics both personal and political where Bush feels passionately. In one sense the book is a fairly candid insight into the man -- I would say that his presidence is fairly consistent with the outline in this book -- and in another it's a fairly cozy memoir covering his daughters, his ownership of the Texas Rangers, his drinking and his courtship and marriage with his wife.
   
   In another sense there is very little balance between Bush the successful leader and Bush the mistaken official. Almost every report here gives off only positive vibes. He speaks of learning here and there and moving on from his mistakes but in retrospect perhaps the whole book was an outline of what to expect of him as president -- results, devotion and faith-enriched judgment.
   
   It's a history without a lot of pith meriting a read only because it is the man himself talking. Here and there he tells his side of things as only he can attest, but usually we're treated only to Bush's unflinching optimism and hand-wringing anecdotes of his rosy results.
   
   If it weren't for the source, this book is not one to remember.



3. first of all...you stupid libs down here spraying your political rants and insane lies...go critique a michael more rag will you!
   
   Some made the point this book doesn't give any new insights in the political mind of the president, and that's true, but it does a great job painting a picture of the man george W. Bush and his outlook on life...written before his defeating of enviromental cry-baby al gore the book talks about Bush as a father, husband, friend, neighbour...a side we don't see very often anymore after he took back the white house.
   
   The book helps people remember Bush is human like every-one else...we learn a bit about his character and what's important to him. We read about the things that matter to him, the things libs refer too when they call him dumb, like loving the outdoors, being part of a comunity, working for your money (that's the #1 liberal 'no!no!'), raising your kids right,...
   
   if you're a liberal, don't bother...this book won't help you "get it"...you don't have the IQ to "get it". If your interested in what bush is like in normal life, how he became the man (not the politician) he is today...read this book as an introduction to the life of the greatest president the world ever had safe for R.Reagan.



4. If I had read this before the 2000 election. I would have learned that Americans want a leader that posseses honesty, compassion, morals, and the courage of his convictions. I should have at least pretended to posses some of these qualities. Bush stole Florida in 2000 and Ohio in '04, if you don't believe me just ask John Kerry. And where did I come up with that stupid imaginary lockbox stuff anyway?



5. I recently saw someone reading this book which I had never heard of before so I looked it up on Amazon. This tome was so moving and uplifting it brought tears to my eyes. Okay, I admit it wasn't the book itself but the reviews. And they weren't tears of joy or hope but tears of hysterical laughter. There were three categories - each engrossing in it's own way: the honest critique, which universally panned the book as as hackneyed as the author himself (and his co-writer, apologist, Hughes); the spoof, which embellished on Bush's phony life making him a Nobel Laureate and corporate magnate; and the honest, heartfelt descriptions that prove that no matter how incompetent, corrupt and morally bankrupt a person is, there's still that percentage of the population who believe he's a good, sincere, visionary leader. With the fortune of hindsight, the latter group stands out though. If you haven't read this book but still want to after reading this and other reviews (unless your looking for a laugh) then God... er, invisible man in the sky help us all!

2 comments about Apostle of Liberty: The World-Changing Leadership of George Washington (Leaders in Action) (Leaders in Action).

1. Reviewed by Tyler R. Tichelaar for Reader Views (12/07)
   
   Stephen McDowell's biography of George Washington, "Apostle of Liberty," has strengths as well as weaknesses. The author's argument is two-fold: Washington was a Christian, not a deist as many recent biographers have claimed, and God or "Providence" guided the United States' creation as a democratic nation.
   
   McDowell's main argument that Washington was a Christian is well supported throughout. McDowell uses extensive quotes from Washington's letters and the writings of those who knew Washington, that Washington was a Christian in his behavior and in his words. Washington was frequently caught praying privately by his family members, he supported local churches, and he continually referred to the hand of Providence as guiding him and the nation during the American Revolution and his presidency. Washington followed Christ's example, thus making him a man to respect, and one who deserves to be held in the highest regard by all Americans and people worldwide for the great contribution he made to ensure liberty, even denying himself the chance to become the first monarch of the United States.
   
   McDowell is obviously disappointed in the way modern historians have treated George Washington. "Apostle of Liberty" provides a more traditional and respectful view of the great general and first president. I agree with McDowell that Washington's great character, his honesty, his modesty, his self-sacrifice and courage are all virtues to model our lives after. I wanted to read this book because I did not feel I knew much about the first president myself, and I now have a greater respect for Washington. I wish, however, the book had provided more detail. I am left wanting to learn still more about the first president.
   
   McDowell divides the book into three sections, the first being Washington's biography, then his character and his legacy. I wish the entire book had focused on his biography. I felt the descriptions of his life read like summaries and short lessons, almost as if written for children or high school students. I would have liked more detail, so that I could get into the mind of George Washington and know what it really was like to suffer through that winter at Valley Forge and to feel the stress and the joy he must have known as a great leader. I thought the section on his character read well as a series of short essays, each on a character trait like honesty or modesty, although a lot of these sections were repetitive with items already discussed in the biographical section. I thought the section on his legacy was just more repetition and would have been better as one final conclusion rather than two separate essays that basically repeated themselves.
   
   My biggest disagreement with the book is that while McDowell completely convinced me that Washington was a Christian and that his beliefs in Christianity led to his strength of character, and while I am a proud American, I have a hard time believing the underlying premise that God or Providence, whether Washington believed it or not, was involved in ensuring the success of the American Revolution. At the end of the book, McDowell has a series of "Lessons of Leadership" to be gained from studying the life of Washington. The first one is "Christianity is the source of liberty, happiness and prosperity in society. Leaders have a duty to acknowledge God and obey His will." Christianity in its purest form can lead to happiness, but this kind of statement is too general and simply inaccurate. Christianity in the Middle Ages and many other times throughout history was far from a source of liberty, and to say leaders must obey God's will is opening up a leader to claiming everything he chooses to do is God's will--not a far cry from extremist religious groups today. Obviously Christianity was a great influence on Washington, but "liberty" or democracy is not dependent on Christianity for its success--after all, ancient Greece created democracy centuries before Christ's birth. The argument of Providence's role in the creation of the United States is something that cannot be reasonably supported and is simply just theorizing. It is a matter of faith, but an argument that I think would turn off many readers.
   
   I would recommend "Apostle of Liberty" to young adults who wish to learn more about Washington--his example is one young people can definitely benefit from following. I also hope McDowell's book leads to more complete biographies where Washington's Christian faith is treated more accurately because it definitely was an integral part of his life.



2. This book seemed to find many of the same conclusions as "Washington's God" by Michael Novak. There were a few anecdotes that I had not read elsewhere. It is one of the better written books in the Leaders in Action Series. I appreciate the author's view that Washington was sincere and straitforward in what he wrote and said.

5 comments about Conversations With Kennedy.

1. Bradlee, the Washington Post journalist and editor, was befriended by Kennedy months before the 1960 Presidential Campaign. They had in the next four years over one- hundred and fifty conversations, the paraphrases of which make up the heart of this volume. The method Bradlee uses is one which I found wanting, as it does not present the President so much in his own words, as in Bradlee's recountings of what those words were.
   The book is best at giving an inside - view of the way friendship and politics go together, and often not - together in Washington. The lapses in the periods of conversation were due to Bradlee's being put in an occasional doghouse for writing in a way the White House did not enjoy.
   The picture presented of the President if of a person of exceptional charm, and good intelligence who is nonetheless afflicted by countless petty considerations. For instance Bradlee reveals the President resented Jackie's mastery of languages, and even resented her star- status the night of the famous White House Broadcast in which she showed it redecorated to an American television - viewing audience.
   The most painful and moving chapter is the last, the account of the President's assassination and especially of his widow's actions during this time. For anyone who was alive at the time and remembers the assassination it will be chilling to read this chapter.
   Kennedy devotees will take pleasure in this book for each incidental story it gives about the President. I think though that for most readers the work will provide less than full satisfaction. One reason for this is that it's telling is quite bland, and instances of the famed Kennedy wit are not as frequent as they might be.



2. conversations with kennedy is a very interesting book because we can learn about jfk the man.
   the annecdotes are very interesting and never boring.
   there are a few pictures too.
   moreover,the book is written by a jfk's friend so infirmations are true.
   I highly recommend it



3. This book was truly a page turner. I was facinated by the intimate details and facts revealed by the author. It allowed me to see Kennedy as a man and not only as a legend. I would recomend this book whole heartedly to anyone interested in JFK. It is a book that is worth being read.



4. This is a book I will have,I have been a J F K fan for a very long time, the chance to learn more of the private person should not be missed, this looks like it will provide an insight into the real J F K, the one I have been searching for.



5. President Kennedy once said that his favorite form of reading was biography, because it attempted to answer the question: what was he really like?

   John F. Kennedy has been a hero of mine ever since I was a child, and this book, more than most, answers that question is a manner that is consistent with the historical record. Bradlee reveals a very human JFK in some of his more private moments, and helps us to better grasp what is, admittedly, beyond our grasp: the magic of the man.

   Perfect he was certainly not; indeed, Kennedy probably had more foibles than most men. But he also had more gifts, and these he used to ultimately make the world a better place. While his actual accomplishments as president are rather meager, his most lasting legacy was a summons to excellence in the service of others, a conviction in the hearts of his countrymen that we can indeed do better, and the argument -- which has never been refuted -- that in reaching for the moon and the stars, and in setting sail on new seas, we find in the midst of a common human endeavor, the best of ourselves.

   He was that kind of a president. This book makes it clear that he was a special, but flawed, kind of man.

3 comments about Watergate: The Presidential Scandal That Shook America.

1. Read this for graduate American history course.
   Keith Olson's book "Watergate" describes the events that led up to the scandal that shook the American public like nothing it had ever experienced. When the public elects officials into office they do not anticipate such scandalous happenings as the one that tore our nation apart. The Watergate scandal left the American population feeling distrustful and pessimistic at one of the most vulnerable times in this nation's history. Everyone wondered how the nation would recover from something as tragic and polarizing as Watergate.
   
   Nixon detested the media. He sought to control everything the press had to report about him and his administration. Nixon's turmoil began when he insisted that the Pentagon Papers stay out of the press. Despite his efforts, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment took precedence over what Nixon maintained was a compromise of national security. While the Pentagon Papers tainted some officials' reputations, there is no evidence to suggest the papers were a threat to national security (18).
   
   Nixon's grave concern regarding re-election in 1972 was driven by three characteristics: his concern about public image, his desire for knowledge about the plans and activities of his opponents, and his heavy reliance on public opinion polls in order to gauge public reactions and to guide future decisions (23). He relied heavily on his White House staff to obtain the information he thought necessary to attain his goal of being re-elected.
   
   Although Nixon's aides took great initiative in attempting to thwart any chance of the Democratic Party winning the election, they crossed the fine line which separates what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. The Plumbers, who were initially formed to stop unauthorized leaks of government information, overstepped their bounds which led to the Watergate scandal (18).
   
   Nixon was overwhelmingly reelected in 1972. This pushed Watergate out of the mind of the public. However, in January the defendants were on trial. Judge Sirica concluded that the defendants of the Watergate break in were withholding knowledge. He threatened stiff penalties if they did not cooperate. Resignations of Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Dean and the acting director of the FBI were the result of James McCord (chief security for CREEP)disclosing information. (CREEP) was the Committee to Re-elect the President.) McCord testified against dean to receive a lesser sentence. Dean turned over names and as a result wanted immunity and continued to give information.
   
   The Washington Post was the major paper that covered Watergate. Watergate played no role in the 1972 elections. People did not yet equate Nixon to Watergate. The journalists reported that CREEPfunds helped pay for Waterate.
   
   The Watergate break-in was initiated by the Plumbers with G. Gordon Liddy, who had been hired by John Mitchell, at the helm. Although Nixon was unaware of the events at the time they occurred, he did learn of the burglary shortly thereafter. His reluctance to handle the scandal at the beginning resulted in the beginning of the end. President Nixon was so driven by secrecy that it clouded his judgment of right and wrong. When the major participants, John D. Ehrlichman, H. R. Haldeman, John Mitchell, Charles Colson, Robert C. Mardian, and Gordon C. Strachan, had to share information with President Nixon he should have immediately done the right thing.
   
   Instead, the cover-up began. President Nixon was in complete denial. He managed to encumber the Watergate investigation for two years with his refusal to cooperate and turn over the necessary information. By hindering the process, President Nixon only hurt the nation by not allowing the scandal to come to a close. Furthermore, the American population saw the President behave in such a manner which tarnished the image of the highest position in the nation.
   
   Due to President Nixon's poor judgment, eighteen of his aides went to prison and he narrowly avoided impeachment. His reliance on advisors and his own poor judgment cost him the presidency. Had he cooperated initially with the judicial system the ramifications and embarrassment would have not been as damaging. The fact that President Nixon never believed he did anything wrong crippled the government. The American people lost faith in the government because no one would have suspected the nation to be susceptible to such a crime. Olson's interpretation appears unbiased and gives a complete account of the events that led to President Nixon's downfall. His inclusion of what the media believed enhanced the book by explaining to the reader what the public opinion was in regards to the Watergate scandal. He continued to include the media's reaction to the events as they progressed, which showed how the public's reaction changed as the scandal continued. I found this to be an important aspect of the book because it provides the reader with a complete view of every angle of the Watergate scandal and demonstrates how much it affected the nation.
   
   As a graduate student in philosophy and history, I recommended this book for anyone interested in American history, and Watergate history.



2. As someone who has read several books on Watergate, I have to ask: why was this published? It contains no new research, no new interviews, no revelations. The entire book is cobbled together from other books, which means that far too many important points and details are glossed over or ignored. What's worse is Olson's prose, so flat and lackluster that it reads like a description of a Senate Appropriations Bill, rather than as the story of the greatest constitutional crisis of the 20th century. Don't be fooled by the inexplicable raves on the cover-this is barely adequate at best. For a thorough and compelling read on Nixon's downfall, read Fred Emery's Watergate instead.



3. Taut summary account of the Watergate tale. This era remains in memory as a series of journalistic fragments and television images half-remembered. It is useful to redo the tape to assemble a fully coherent image and this work is an excellent short history and analysis, from the Plumbers to Deep Throat to nervous breakdown and resignation, exeunt omnes, quite a few, save but one, with no get out of jail free card. The book brings in a theme by way of diagnosis in terms of the corrosive effect of the 'imperial presidency' and the covert perversions of 'presidential will' proceeding in Cold War prerogative as progressive Machiavellian disease to the Nixonesque fatal dosage. As a mere peon here not fooled for once, one is struck by the curious impudence of incompetent villainy, and the strange fortune that a picture of rank dishonesty starting as routine business as usual as if this were all presumed is what finally led to exposure. One gets the bad feeling the other smiling faces in the photo ops are less incompetent, no proof of virtue.

5 comments about Asad: The Struggle for the Middle East.

1. This is such a superb work, that the title of this review warranted alliteration. Still pretty much one of the best works on modern Syria: simultaneously a biography, a history, and an analysis of inter-state machinations in the Middle East. Nice narrative flow, much of it based on interviews with the persons involved, including Asad himself. I really can't recommend this enough. Anyone with even a remotely passing interest in the Middle East should read this book. A pity Seale didn't produce more works as this and his other work "The Struggle for Syria", which covers an earlier period, are so freakin' amazing! I also recommend, as a companion piece "The Lion of Damascus" by David Lesch, a biography of Asad's son, the current Syrian president, Bashar al-'Asad.



2. This book is important for anyone trying to learn about the Middle East, but I agree with other reviewers that the book is flawed. It is very biased and paints Asad in a much more positive light than he deserves. Asad and his regime were responsible for many atrocities and has contributed to the instability of the region, but Mr. Seale simply glosses over many of these crimes.
   
   Mr. Seale's description of Asad's attack against the Syrian city of Hama is cursory at best. By all accounts I have read Hama was devastated, and thousands of people were killed, maimed or displaced, but the account given here doesn't say anything about the human suffering. Not only that but Seale seems to justify and even approve of the action because of the attacks that emanated from this city.
   
   Asad was not a humanitarian and his regime was extremely oppressive. As with any authoritarian regime Asad enriched cronies to the detriment of the Syrian people. He killed and tortured his own people. These facts seemed to be omitted from this book. I have no idea why this was left out, but it skews the book and leaves the reader an irrevocably flawed book. This book also casts Israel as the main instigator in all the areas troubles. This book will leave the uninformed reader with the impression that had the region simply followed Asad then all would have been well. The fact is that Israel does in fact shoulder some blame for the current situation, but they certainly do not deserve all the blame.
   
   With that said the book is still important, and deserves the 4 star rating I gave it. Syria is a very important nation and the more we know about it the better informed we will be of the entire situation. This book contributes to the readers greater understanding of this region as long as they understand that the book is biased. The nature of the Asad regime means there will be little information available to readers, so any information is important.
   
   This book is well written and the author has obviously done a lot of research and got to know Asad very well. There is a lot of important information in here, but all readers should come into this book understanding its flaws right from the beginning.



3. This book is already nearing 20 years in age, so much has already been said about its portrayal of modern Near East geopolitics. Anyone interested in this subject matter should read this book, as it is provides valuable insight into events within Syria, throughout the region, and across the world that shaped the relationships between Arab states themselves and with Israel as witnessed in the late 20th century. Much has occured since and it is interesting to speculate how Seale would have woven into the narrative, among other major events, Jordan's 1994 treaty with Israel, as Assad long prided himself on thwarting such an agreement. (Granted, Seale's ongoing journalistic activities offer plenty of insight into his perspectives on most any regional developments.)
   
   Seale's research is exhaustive and paints a fascinating picture of a man who seized and retained power in a complex, volatile country and who thrust himself into one of the most divisive and enigmatic conflicts facing the world today. Unfortunately, this book must be regarded as the romantic (harsher critics may say sycophantic) chronicling of Syrian and Arab nationalism that it is. There can be no doubt that Seale is vehemently opposed to Israeli values and worldview, and to a lesser degree those of the United states and other Western powers. Seale characterizes Israel as continually exercising an almost Svengali influence on the West, able to unilaterally bend the wills of its more powerful allies and impose nefarious designs upon the entire Arab world. His attitude toward terrorism is forgiving to say the least, not to mention his argument that the West's fear of terrorism is a function of Israeli "psychological warfare" rather than a true international reality and utmost national security priority. Seale is also reluctant to hold Assad accountable for his diplomatic failures and military defeats, but is rather wont to characterize the venerable pan-Arab leader as simply a victim of external circumstance.
   
   So long as one is able to distill much of these biases (or at least acknowledge their influence on the reporting), Seale's book constitutes a uniquely detailed survey of modern Syrian history in the vital context of regional conflicts that have defined it.



4. Patrick Seale did a great job here, this book is a must read and I would reccomend it not just to people who are interested in how Syria's contemporary history was shaped by the late president Asad but also to those who want a deeper insight on Middle East politics, Arab nationalism, the question of Lebanon, the formation of the United Arab Republic by Egypt and Syria and the doomed divorce between them, the rocky relationship between Jordan and Syria, the October 1973 war, Sadat and his controversial peace treaty with Israel, Sadat's deceit, Henry Kissinger's role in the Middle East and last but not least American foreign policy in the Middle East. This book should be read by all major think tanks in America and also by the current government personnel interested mainly in Syria and foreign policy



5. This is probably the only available biography of late Syrian President Hafez Assad. Keep in mind that Seale was given all that he had asked for - like many other Western scholars who were treated to the court and became apologetic to the regime - to write this book which makes him, so to speak, the spokesperson of the presidential court. Even though Seale reports about the many murders that happened during the career of Assad, he does so from an apologetic perspective. Assad is always depicted as having to kill before his adversaries kill him. While this could be true in the context of tribal Arab politics, it relieves Assad of all of the responsibilities of the killings that happened during his reign.
   Additionally, the book lacks proper investigative methodology.
   Things are narrated from the eyes of Assad, with some minimal background. When Seale talks about Assad's brother Rifaat who tried to replace his brother through a coups d'etats in the early 80s, for example, Seale gives an account about Rifaat that could have only been written after Rifaat had fallen out with his brother and was sent to exile. Rifaat is described as a hot tempered gangster kid since his early childhood who used to carry a stick and bully his peers. While reports about Rifaat's atrocities during his rule under his brother should not be undermined, stories about Rifaat's innate hot temper should be taken with a grain of salt. If this book was written during the days of Rifaat while still in favor with his brother, then a different account would have probably been produced about the president's brother. Additionally, the sources are limited and often not thoroughly cross examined to establish their credibility when writing the history of Syria's dictator.

No comments about The Wit & Wisdom of FDR.

3 comments about Ronald Reagan: A Graphic Biography.

1. The tone is satiric, never sarcastic. The artwork is tasteful, never exaggerated, even in this "Comic Strip" format. The beautifully written narrative carefully outlines the many "fumbles" of the guy whose image is associated with Football as much as The Presidency?
   Ultimately, the big question is, did his "Vision" outweigh all the dramatic, critical blunders, which cost lives; which cost the American people in ways far beyond galactic deficits and debt? Is the President primarily aa Visionary? Or the *most accountable* Public Servant?
   For those who feel that the book contains too many secondary mistakes of a great leader, I submit that they were kind in omitting plenty of stuff: his failed Immigartion Policy; 1986 Payroll Tax; his Military Budget increase on top of Carter's Military Budget increase; the Graham-Rudman "March To The Sea" on presumptive cost-effective, necessary programs; unnecessary tax breaks for the super rich who have 11 Accountants to brainstorm on the issue. George Will pointed out many years ago that his man gave us "93 months of growth". I say, based upon four trillion dollars worth of debt dropped at the front door of the "workin' man" that Reagan thought he was fighting for.



2. Graphic nonfiction novels are not easy to review because they exist on two planes: they are both art and information at one time. But they must generally considered to be more nonfiction than art. If the content isn't any good, it's hard to enjoy the art. This book has that problem The art is very, very good...cartoony while still doing a good job at resembling the actual people and events. However, the content is biased at best and inaccurate at worst. If this were the only thing you knew about Reagan, you would be forced to assume (as the authors do) that the country believes nothing true about Reagan, and that the mass of them were simply deluded about the way things work in the world. If you do, that's fine, but it's not the truth. The authors here give Reagan no credit for anything and assign all of his successes to either deceit, luck, or pure stupidity. So, in the end, great art + wildly biased factual information = below-average book. If you know enough to separate fact from opinion, you'll like it. If this is the only book you care to read on Reagan's legacy, don't bother.



3. What makes this book fascinating is that it is an illustrated biography, with a comic strip format, and covers the span of Reagan's political career.
   
   The book is very clear and easy to follow. The details in the book are very educational.
   
   This would be a great book to use for High School students studing Government or History.

5 comments about Man of the People: A Life of Harry S. Truman (Oxford Paperbacks).

1. I was unfortunately persuaded by a review of this book that it was a better one to start with than McCullough's Pulitzer-prize-winning book "Truman." So I gave it a try, but had to quit about 100 pages in because it was SO bad.
   
   I suspect that Hamby (who wrote a book on Truman in 1972) had this book in the works when McCullough came out with his tour-de-force a few years before. Not wanting to lose out on his efforts to date, he packs his text with the most meaningless minutiae (eg, endless quotes of dollar figures regarding Harry's business ventures) just to show the reader, I think, how many hours he spent slogging through county records and such -- but at the cost of any flow to his narrative.
   
   Now this is actually a very favorable spin on his writing, but I suspect the truth is that -- even without this junkyard of data -- he is not a writer capable of holding the reader's interest. SO many times while I was reading this book I kept a running argument with the author over why he was not providing more backstory to the events in Harry's life. When I finally dove into McCullough's book it was a man starved for oxygen finally breathing it in.
   
   Perhaps the most telling part of Hamby's book is his dig on McCullough's book (p722). He describes it as "a nicely told story but (despite its length) episodic and lacking much in the way of historical perspective." From this I can assure Hamby that he has succeeded beyond his wildest expectations in producing a book that is A POORLY TOLD STORY. Congratulations.
   
   As for his own implication that he, and not McCullough, has provided historical perspective for Truman's story, well, I guess he's right if "historical perspective" is defined as "a mind-numbing recitation of meaningless but accurate little facts."
   
   Using the "forest-for-the-trees" analogy, McCullough is a pilot carrying you effortlessly over the forest with a flawless narration. Hamby is a blind stuttering lumberjack who gets off on the texture of tree bark while you quitely go insane with boredom. (My apologies to any blind stutterering lumberjacks who may take offense.)



2. This is one of the better biographies of a US President I have ever read. Hamby avoids the hero worship which plagues other authors and, instead, takes a frank look at the man and how he discharged his duties, public and private, throughout his life. I found this book invaluable resource for understanding the cold war and American politics in the middle of the 20th century.



3. I had a hard time getting through this book. The first half was pretty dull, and throughout the book the writing is workman-like, but not inspiring. As for the author's integrity, I would say the book is written fair-mindedly and with adequate research having been done.



4. David Mccullough's book on Truman is great. It is well written, full of great information, and though many people think too pro-Truman it does show why he was a Great Man. Unfortuantely many professors and especially those with Revisionist Tendancies don't feel Mccullough's book is scholary. They see it as Pop History. I think this is academic snobbery, and also stubborness upon the part of the revionists to admit Truman was a great President. However, a good way to silence the revisonists and to read another great book on Truman is to read Hamby's Man of the People. Though a little more critical than Mccollough, Hamby again paints a great portrait of a great man. For whatever reasons, Hamby is considered more scholary and his book more scholary. Whatever makes our Professors happy. But regardless, this is a great book. Though long like Mccollough, it tells a great story. Hamby is a fine historian who was also on c-spans look at Truman for its President's series. So in short, a more "academic" but just as great book on Truman.



5. Hamby uses the tools of a professional historian -- excellent documentation and sources, superb prose, and healthy skepticism -- to brilliantly move beyond the standard adoring view of Truman as a plain-talking, quick-deciding everyman. While he is shown to have been those things, he is also revealed to have shared much of the pettiness, anger, and impulsiveness that have marked many of his predecessors and successors. He is (surprize, surprize) a human being rather than an icon. Especially good is Hamby's narrative of the downhill trajectory of Truman's second term and the post-Potsdam evolution of his anti-communism. Historical biography at its absolute best. And by rendering Truman human, he ultimately produces a more admiring portrait than other books that set out to be adoring.

5 comments about Understanding Thomas Jefferson.

1. Written shortly after DNA testing seemed to "prove" Thomas Jefferson fathered at least one (possibly all 6) of slave Sally Hemings's children, Halliday has sex on the brain. Purporting to be about all aspects of Jefferson's personality, Halliday keeps coming back to the Hemings thing over and over. Obviously intended for a popular audience, the book seems shallow and unconvincing. There is no doubt that Jefferson was an enigma, a contradiction in many things (one who could, for example, espouse that "all men are created equal," but declare that blacks were inferior and should not intermingle with whites), which Halliday admits, but Halliday seems fuzzy and speculative on issues of Jefferson's religious beliefs and "Romantic" (capital R) impulses. Also many of Halliday's judgments seem tempered by 20th-century principles and prejudices that he then levels against Jefferson's 17th-century background. He is critical of past Jefferson scholars (Dumas Malone, Merrill Peterson, and Joseph Ellis) as being too determined to defend their hero Jefferson (especially against the Hemings charge), but he nowhere shows the same insights and scholarly perceptions as these biographers. Disappointing, all in all.



2. I do not criticize this work because it dwells chiefly on Thomas Jefferson's personal life; it seems to me that that is a perfectly legitimate topic of scholarship. If reading about the lives of "great men" (or "great women") ought to be good for anything, it ought to help us examine how they dealt with the contradictions and difficulties of every human's life. But I do criticize this book because I think the author himself becomes what he calls a "blinkered historian," especially when dealing with Jefferson's relationship with his slave, Sally Hemings.
   
   Unlike many historians, whose gyrations to avoid the idea that Jefferson had a sexual relationship with Hemings he points out, E.M. Halliday accepts the liason has having occurred. However, even he cannot comfortably accept that Jefferson must have begun the relationship with Sally when she was only 14-going-on-15. To avoid having to feel that Jefferson seduced this very young girl, who was dependent on him and without recourse, Haliday too resorts to contortion to justify the future president: Sally must have seduced HIM in order to achieve a better and more secure life. And, he thinks, her mother might well have put her up to it.
   
   This is a distinction without a difference. Even if the young Sally DID seduce Jefferson for the motives Halliday speculates about, the choices she made (if indeed she had any) were made in the context of the fact of her slavery. No matter how you slice it, it was the institution of slavery that shaped Sally's life: either Jefferson directly took advantage of her, or she was forced by her condition to use her wits to improve her lot as best she could. In either case, Jefferson, who knew all too well the evils of slavery, cannot be absolved of his self-indulgence.
   
   November 7, 2008: For those interested in the dynamics of the Jefferson-Hemings relationship in the context of Virginia slavery, the book "The Hemingses of Monticello" may be helpful.



3. I started out very excited by this book. Based on my readings, I was convinced that Jefferson had had a liason with Hemmings, unquestionably based on the circumstanital evidence. (I did not know about the DNA testing at the time). I was looking forward to this book because I knew Halliday thought it to be fact, and I didnt want a biographer who masked over real history. It started out as an easy read. It quickly disintegrated into a book of sleazy guesswork and disjointed facts. I knew more about Jefferson's sex life than I did his presidency. I cant remember EVEN ONE mention of who his vice president was. Did he even talk about the election? Not that I recall. I do remember Halliday speculating about whether Jefferson masturbated. (forgive the image but you get the idea now of what Im talking about). The time chronology is all over the place, nothing is in order. The tone changes chapter by chapter. One minute he is talking about Hemmnings, the next chapter is spent degrading all the other authors who have written about Jefferson, of course none of them have it right according to Halliday. I have never seen an author so unprofessional to spend an ENTIRE chapter (entitled "Blinkered Historians) on why the other biographers were wrong. In retrospect, even if David Ellis did have it wrong about the Hemmings affair (which he did), I feel my time would have been spent much more wisely reading him, even if it is a little harder to read. I also fealt that Hallidays own personal beliefs and interests seeped into the book. Because some parts of the book were not credible, I wasnt sure what to believe. Examples, the specuations about the sexual details. Another example was when he claimed Adams believed that government and power should be intrusted to the aristocratic and the rich families of America. That is really not true, while Adams did belive that the federal gov't needed certain powers, he did not believe in elite rule. He was criticized for being a monarchist in his time, but that was really nothing more than politics, he believed in a multi-faceted gov't. Okay so that was a tangent, long story short, I fealt that I walked away much less enlightend about jefferson than I had hoped.



4. This book is a very easy to read seemingly well documented work but it will not provide the reader with Thomas Jefferson in historical context. If your interest is in what Mr. Jefferson accomplished during his life and the many great achievements that he participated in on behalf the formation of the United States I would pass up this work. If your interest lies in his carnal side and his personal sexual history this might be more your speed. Had I known this was the piece of fluff that it turned out to be I would not have wasted my money on this work. This book would probably be a good basis for daytime TV couch potato fare. It is hardly a good work of historical content and most likely would have been rejected by any Masters level thesis committee. Most of this book could be condensed into one chapter.
   On a number of occasions Mr Halliday lets his own personal political bias color his image of Mr. Jefferson pushing this work even further from the vein of relevant history.
   I picked up this work based upon the recommendations on the inside cover. I have always been impressed with the historical works of Mr. Ambrose but I believe that there must have been more to his review.



5. A word of warning from the get-go: E. M. Halliday's "Understanding Thomas Jefferson" is not your standard biography of our third president. It does not fawn, nor does it marbleize Jefferson as some untouchable, unknowable, walking mystery so impenatrable that none but the most scholarly of biographers dare touch him.
   
   What you come away with from this book is a sense that you know Jefferson just a bit better or, barring that, you at least have had a light shown upon areas of his life not heretofore illuminated for fear that doing so might "cut him down to size", make him merely mortal.
   
   Halliday takes us through just about all the phases of Jefferson's life, from his youthful years, through his marriage, his various relationships with the three main women in his life (outside of his daughters): his wife, Martha, Maria Cosway and Sally Hemings. He shows us Jefferson's stormy relationship with Alexander Hamilton while the former served as Secretary of State and the latter Secretary of the Treasury in Washington's cabinet.
   
   He unsparingly comments on previous, "god-like" biographers of Jefferson, including Dumas Malone and Merrill Peterson, pointing out their (to him) flaws and blindnesses (especially on the subject of Sally Hemings). He steers the reader in other directions of thought that these men did not see fit to address, which failure, as Halliday would have it, presents an incomplete picture of their celebrated subject and cheats posterity of a history which is "meaningful".
   
   There are blunt discussions and speculations upon the nature of Jefferson's sexual development, both before, during and after his ten years of relative marital bliss with Martha Wayles Skelton. If you are someone who just cannot abide the thought that Jefferson had a sexual and, apparently, long-term and loving relationship with Sally Hemings (despite acknowledged DNA evidence to the contrary), or who thinks that after Martha Jefferson's death, her husband turned off his sexual desires like one turns off a kitchen faucet and became an emotionless stone statue, then perhaps this book might not be your cup of tea.
   
   Try it anyway. Mr. Halliday makes his case rationally, calmly and gradually, debunking a few things and confirming others along the way, for example, rendering the supposedly "long-lasting" passion of Jefferson for Maria Cosway (the married English lady with whom he flirted - and we really don't know what else - while he was ambassador in Paris) much shorter than it actually was, primarily because ... well, Maria was apparently a bit of a fluff-head. And you can well imagine that Jefferson, of all people, with his love of learning and books and education, could not long have endured a ditzy female.
   
   If you had read nothing about Jefferson, and wanted to use this as a first introduction to the man, I'd discourage it, recommending that you read at least one other "mainstream" conventional biography before reading E. M. Halliday's work in order to see the sharp contrast between the two resources. If you approach Thomas Jefferson in that fashion, then Halliday's honesty and open style, as well as his obvious desire that history consider all aspects of its subject, no matter how unthinkable or "forbidden", will become, I believe, quite appealing.
   
   You will find this book a refreshing look at one of the most respected figures in American history, no less so because he is examined unsparingly and who, while found wanting in some aspects of his life, emerges less of an enigma and more of an "every man" than most biographies of Jefferson would have you to believe.