Politics Government Books

I read and reread this book in 36 hours. The actions of a few very, conservative Republicans is inspiring. It has upset me a great deal to learn not only what happened, but the fact that nobody will be held to account for their misbehavior. The Bush administration has caused major damage to this country that will take many, many years to correct. You will learn why the Canadian government has put the USA on their list of rouge nations, and you will learn why the USA can not join the ICC(International Criminal Court) in the Hague. You will learn why we can not try a person in our legal system who has been tortured. David Addington is the second scariest person in the world, next the Cheney If we required every 2008 voter to read this book, things in this country would improve immediately. I am still shaking with anger 24 hours later

As a loyal American who loves the ideals this country was founded on, the behavior described in this book makes me ill. It is revolting. It is disgusting. It is deeply depressing that our fellow Americans, singing the same patriotic songs as the rest of us and knowing the same stories of Washington, Jefferson, Adams - and what they stood for, could engage in behavior that is the polar opposite of what our founders' intended. Anyone with a brain and a heart remembers the horror of 9/11 and of course we want to protect our beloved country from her enemies (internal and external). But the memory of that horror does not justify this new set of horrors done in the name of protection. The wise British intelligence agent in the beginning of the book warned about the temptation of aggressive interrogation. To paraphrase: "The intelligence is not reliable. You become the bad guys. And the people you interrogate will be released when they finally appear in a court of law." My prayer is that the people responsible for these atrocities and for sullying the name of our country here and abroad will be brought to justice. And I dearly pray that the next president, whomever that might be, takes immediate measures to restore our honor.

It seems like each week another book comes out reminding us of what a disastrous presidency we've lived through in the past 8 years. Meyers focusses on the abandonment of very basic civilized values in the name of "fighting the war on terror." She is particularly good at illustrating that torture does not produce useful counter-terror information, but most often produces lies because the person being tortured will say anything to have it stopped. After this long national nightmare is over this book will remind us how America stood by while its basic principles were being undermined by the Bush/Cheney usurpation. A chilling book.

This book should be required reading for all who are interested in the workings of government, and in how government power can be abused. In one sense, it is just another in a long series of books on this subject. In another sense, it is an important step in shedding light on an American regime which has corroded American values.

There is a very real irony in the fact that the very party which purports to oppose excessive governmental power and influence has so thoroughly wielded such power to excess.

This dark and disturbing look into the Bush Administration's approach to government is quite well documented. (There are several instances where the documentation should have been provided but wasn't, and footnoting vice quoting would have been preferable.)

"L'etat, c'est moi!" indeed, as one reviewer has noted. The root cause, the underlying pattern here is that the President has assumed that he is above the law. This is reflected in many ways, from the overly broad claims of Executive Privilege to the implicit argument that no laws can constrain the President of the United States. It is this latter assumption, as Ms. Mayer's account demonstrates, that underlies the administration's arguments that no Federal or international law prohibits the President from torturing captives if he chooses to do so. And clearly he has chosen to do so.

"The Dark Side" serves as a warning against laxity on the part of the American public. Despite numerous warning signs -- the several reports alleging torture, the photos from Abu Ghraib (the abuses were not confined just to Abu Ghraib), the documented deaths of some detainees, et cetera -- the American public simply failed to react. Apparently many found it too difficult to verify the facts and to sort through the reports, and so most chose not to. For others, it seemed as though it was too hard to believe. Either way, the American public has not yet responded to the savaging of American principles done in their name. Such passivity has given dictators throughout history a clear field for their abuses, dictators from Julius Caesar (see Tom Holland's book Rubicon) to Oliver Cromwell and Robespierre, to Hitler and Stalin. In every case, as Gustav Bychowski noted in Dictators and Disciples from Caesar to Stalin, the average citizens under those dictators seemed like people who had awakened from a bad dream once the dictators had been deposed.

Within the administration, those who objected, regardless of the grounds for their objections, were simply isolated, encapsulated like grains of sand in an oyster. And, like those encapsulated grains of sand, they became gleaming pearls in a sea of moral darkness. Ms. Mayer recounts their efforts to provide a voice of reason and the efforts of their opponents to isolate those objectors. In all, despite the conscientious outcries of several good men, the likes of John Yoo and David Addington managed to give their masters free legal rein to violate the humanitarian and legal principles which should have bound this administration.

Please read the book, and then take the time to follow at least some of the references Ms. Mayer provides. Look at the wording of the Geneva Conventions and of the Convention Against Torture, both of which the United States has ratified. Consider the rights in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, for they embody American ideals. They enshrine the core American values for how people should treat one another, and how a government should treat people. Think about the Golden Rule. Then ask yourself whether the activity Ms. Mayer has documented here is worthy of having been done in the name of the citizens of the United States of America. Does torture really represent American values? Is that what Americans should stand for?

Ask those questions, and know that others throughout the world also are asking them.

"It's one of the most sophisticated, refined programs of torture ever...there was a top-down quality control" according to an outside expert familiar with the protocol. "A Technicolor horror show", is the description of the CIA Inspector General's report on the deaths in custody of at least three detainees. "The totality is just staggering", says a US official with access to details of the Bush torture program.

That's how most readers will feel after reading Jane Mayer's outstanding book. We have heard of waterboarding, seen the Abu Ghraib photos, read about extraordinary rendition, and heard the term "torture" used by partisans on both sides. But Jane Mayer does us all the service of giving these fragments a place in the big picture. The picture is still incomplete, because so many of the documents are still classified. Someday, historians (and perhaps prosecutors) will unearth the complete record of the Bush-Cheney torture policies. Until then, The Dark Side is likely to be regarded as the most definitive account of this episode in American history.

They are all here. Dick Cheney, making military policy despite the fact that the Vice President is not even in the Constitutional chain of command. Alberto Gonzales, loyally producing whatever the White House wanted. John Yoo and David Addington, determined to make the President into an unrestrained monarch. Jack Goldsmith, so appalled by Yoo's and Addington's legal opinions, which formed the basis of the torture regime, that he withdrew the infamous Aug 1 2002 "torture memo". The military lawyers who tried to resist the pressure to break U.S. and international law. The FBI, so outraged by the military's torture techniques at Guantanamo that it pulled its people out of interrogations and ordered them to "stand clear and report". The Supreme Court, ruling against Bush by frighteningly narrow 5-4 margins. The unnamed female CIA agent who flew overseas to watch Khalid Sheikh Mohammed be waterboarded, who insisted on keeping Khaled el-Masri imprisoned in Afghanistan for months despite clear evidence that he was an innocent bystander. Villains, heroes, fools, scoundrels, cowards, victims, all are brought to life in Mayer's pages.

A few main themes deserve mention. One is that this program clearly seems to have been designed, from the beginning, to torture people in violation of US and international law. The CIA designed its interrogation program on the military's SERE (survival, evasion, resistance, escape) training, which in turn was a response to North Korean torture and brainwashing of American POWs. The program was managed, in fact micromanaged, from the top. Interrogators had to cable Washington for permission to slap, to shake, to deny sleep. There was no question of `bad apples' or `pressure from below', as the White House has tried to claim.

Another theme is how counterproductive this program is, even in its own terms. For example, Bush tried to claim that Abu Zubaydah gave up important information after his "enhanced interrogation". Jane Mayer reviews the record - the public, documentary record - and shows that either the information was already known, or that it was nonsense. She reports of prisoners, including Abu Zubaydah and Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, who were responding to conventional interrogation with useful information, and who either shut down or started lying once the torture commenced. Al-Libi's case is particularly stark: before torture, he exposed a planned attack against the US Embassy in Aden, Yemen; afterward, in Egypt, he made up lies about Saddam's nonexistent WMDs, which were then used to help sell the Iraq war. "They were killing me. I had to tell them something", he later explained. These are only two examples out of many she cites.

There was clearly a granite determination to roll over all obstacles to Presidential power. Mayer's book corroborates many others in pointing the finger at Dick Cheney and his subordinates. She describes, over and over, how momentous decisions were made without review by Congress or even by relevant parts of the executive branch, including State, Justice, the military's own lawyers, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Already in November 2001, Cheney was making speeches declaring that terrorists did not deserve to be treated as POWs. Cheney called in the CIA's Inspector General - a step unlike anything experienced in earlier administrations - after he wrote a report on detainee deaths. When Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act prohibiting the CIA from using more force than allowed in the Army Field Manual, it was Cheney's legal adviser David Addington who wrote the presidential signing statement asserting the president's power to ignore the law. When the Supreme Court rebuked the administration in the Hamdan case, it was again Addington who drafted a law to defy its decision, which later passed Congress as the Detainee Treatment Act.

There was also a pervasive fear of prosecution. As early as January 2002, the State Department's legal adviser was warning that US personnel from soldiers on up to the President could be prosecuted for war crimes. By the end of 2002, the CIA had stopped videotaping interrogations for fear of legal liability. After the 2004 election, even Cheney expressed this fear in his opposition to bringing CIA prisoners to Guantanamo. "People will ask where they've been and `What have you been doing with them?'...They'll all get lawyers." In June 2005, an Italian judge issued arrest warrants for thirteen CIA agents for kidnapping a Muslim cleric from Italy and sending him to Egypt for torture. And of course there is the (now famous) Red Cross memo, unequivocally describing the treatment of Abu Zubaydah as torture.

This is not a book that should divide liberals from conservatives. Most of the brave people cited here, trying to stop the lawbreaking and cruelty, were not liberals or Democrats, but conservative lawyers, military prosecutors, FBI agents, Army generals, and Congressional Republicans. Congressional Democrats, with one or two commendable exceptions, are conspicuous only by their absence or timidity.

Many of our fellow citizens are so blinded by vengeance that they demand we stop boo-hooing over the fate of murdering thugs and let the torturers get on with their work. If they are willing to open their minds, Mayer's book will help show them why those sentiments, besides being wrong on the facts, are harmful to the struggle against terrorists and to the kind of country we have been and want to remain.

ASIN:0061547751 Fleeced: How Barack Obama, Media Mockery of Terrorist Threats, Liberals Who Want to Kill Talk Radio, the Do-Nothing Congress, Companies That Help Iran, and Washington Lobbyists for Foreign Governments Are Scamming Us ... and What to Do About It]]One of the most informative reads ever. Great depth backed by testimony. A must read for all voters who cares about this country and the freedoms we enjoy.

This book is well researched and objectively addresses many key issues facing America today. It can be used as an excellent reference book and gives the reader many helpful incites on a variety of topics all of which I deem necessary to make informed voting decisions concerning the up and coming elections.

In short, I highly recommend this book. It should be required reading for those that have an interest in the well being of America.

Dick Morris has successfully gathered the data and given us a clear and coherent analysis in this well written book. The only major flaw I can find is that he is too soft on Obama's false claims that he has never taken money from lobbyists when one of the very few things he has an actual history of doing is TAKING MONEY FROM PACs and lobbyists! Here is a link to a Boston Globe article highlighting my point.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/

I would love to know why Dick Morris did not mention this in the book, considering the fact that it augments his argument against Obama. But everyone ought to know of Barack Obama's hypocrisy when it comes to attacking his opponents on the issue of lobbyists when he himself has a history of the very same behavior.

Despite this omission of relevant content, I recommend that every American ought to read this book. Especially because of the bipartisan themes this book conveys and the awareness it raises. Nobody is left off the hook when the system is rotten to the core. If you want to know how our politicians and government are cheating us and what we can do about it, THIS BOOK IS A MUST READ.

I felt like I had been fleeced after paying for and reading the book. There was nothing revealing in my view and frankly some of the commentary and analysis was rather juvenile. For example the chapter on the sub-prime mess is quite simplistic and doesn't really get to the heart of what went wrong.

Nice read. Americans are losing their freedoms because of liberal intolerence. A must read for true patriots.

This book should be required reading for us all. It brings together the thoughts of many of the great minds to illustrate the needs, opportunities, and challenges facing America in a world which it can no longer dominate, ignore, or control.

I have mixed views on this book.

On one hand, there is a wealth of global economic information that would be interesting to anyone following the topic. The book gives you a genuine glimpse into how individuals in the countries that count as 'the rest' view current trends. This book is not uninteresting by any means.

But it has the same inherent flaws as every other book by Zakaria. Like Friedman, he puts an over-emphasis on economics and tables completely geopolitical realities. When he does mention those who would disagree with that overemphasis, his dismissive nature of those critics is way too brief. He mentions that Iran is 'Romania, not Germany' when the threat that people are concerned about is nuclear and terrorism issues, not its economic growth. He dismisses those wary of China's rise as 'neoconservatives' who don't have the facts on their side. In fact, many China watchers consistently opposed the war in Iraq. For all of Zakaria' impressive knowledge about the military balance in the early 20th century, he seems to be oblivious to the fact that China now has the world's largest submarine fleet (which makes the U.S. surface fleet in Asia he refers to quite vulnerable). Some of the anti-ship missiles they are armed with are bought from Russia for less than a million dollars each, and can sink multi-billion dollar warships. The dollar figure of military budgets is mattering less and less today, so Zakaria can't determine victory or defeat simply based on dollar figures.

The second typical flaw of a Zakaria book present in his latest one is his complete ignorance of those affected negatively of globalization. He attributes negative American feelings toward trade, immigration, and globalization to be because of scaremongering, yet all of these things have caused massive wage stagnation and manufacturing job losses in the millions since we embarked on the free trade kool-aid. For all his analyses on the reasons why civilizations fall from their place of greatness, he seems to gloss over the fact that Rome fell when it produced too little and consumed too much - a process that is replicating itself for America through globalization. There is zero sympathy to be found from the author for the auto worker who lost his job and is put in a mid life crisis because it got sent to China, and I think this sets an extremely bad precedent, especially since Barack Obama is reading this book.

If Zakaria provided more factual basis for talking down his critics and political persuasions he disagreed with, and perhaps laid out some solutions for those Americans who have been and are being slaughtered by free trade agreements, I would rate this book five stars. But it doesn't do that.

All in all, I find something very ironic about this book. It's called the 'post-American world' but the only way for that term to really be fulfilled is if we follow Zakaria's recomendations of brainless trade policy, unrestricted immigration, and selling ourselves to China so we can, as he says, "buy a couple extra lattes." It is, after all, all those things which has played a vital part in the 'rise of the rest.' Where would China and India be today without an opening of Western markets? They need the consumer base we have. And once even one fifth of their populations have a middle class that is big enough to compare to the current American consumer base, they won't need these trade agreements anymore.

Definitely not Fareed Zakaria's best book out there.

From the end of World War II until 2003 there was one nation that exceeded all others in economic prosperity, military strength and cultural power. That was further exemplified in 1989 when the Berlin Wall came crashing down and Hasselhoff sang for freedom. Yet, in 2003 the US's position as sole superpower - economically, politically, militarily and culturally - began to crumble.

Zakaria sees this change from a unipolar to multipolar world. While the rising powers - China, India and the EU - may not eclipse the United States in these areas, their relative power will rise (and have risen) to a degree that the United States cannot merely ignore them.

In his comparison between British Power of the early 20th century and American power, Zakaria introduces a contrast between the two. The UK had lost economic power but maintained political power - both hard (military) and soft (cultural and general good will). In the end the economic problems - of both loss of secondary and tertiary industrial dominance, and the sheer size of the new powers, the US and USSR - caused the UK to be eclipsed. Yet for a while the UK maintained a political role, through both lingering power and clever diplomacy. Zakaria shows how the current American situation is reversed. It has a loss of power - both militarily and politically (largely because of the adventure in Iraq) - but maintains its power economically.

Is it too late for the US? Zakaria thinks not; the next administration can rebuild some of the bridges the old has burnt and continue building the relationships the Bush started (i.e. with India - one of the only foreign policy situations I, personally am in agreement with the Bush Administration). Furthermore, the base of the American economic system, its financial architecture and its flexible superstructure (Zakaria does not use these nomenklatura, but that's what he means), will also allow the US to continue its economic power. What the US must do, according to Zakaria and for which I am in agreement, is build on the post War architecture of the Bretton Woods and UN systems of international organizations to create responsive procedures to new challenges - global warming, terrorism and energy security. This can be done either through the creation of new organizations directly charged with such sectors or through the broadening and deepening of powers already charged to such organizations.

While Zakaria appears to see what are the new challenges, his role in creating the current crisis in political power is glossed over at best. On pages 223-224, his mini mea culpa on the Iraq War attempts to avert some of the blame that can be laid upon him. But, he does not cover how his (and Christopher Hitchens') support of the Iraq adventure, allowed others from the center-left and the caviar gouche to not do their homework on the war before expressing support. While I have long felt Zakaria has a great grasp of the "big picture" and this book furthers that opinion, his myopic views of smaller pictures leaves much to be desired. (I am discussing not only his support for the Iraq imperialism but also such things as his attack on the left and center-left detractors of the Free Trade Area of the Americas without understanding their issues). This book fits well into his largely coherent and correct vision of the big picture. I would suggest anybody from IR geeks to casual observers pick this one up.

The author covers an amazing amount of ground in just 250 pages. Many vast topics are dealt with in summary fashion in order to get to the main point, America's role in new multi-polar world. At times this leads to over simplification and misleading impressions. Just one example. On page 153 Fareed Zakaria provides a thumbnail sketch of Hinduism and the essence of is that: "Nothing is required, nothing is forbidden." But just a television knowledge of India could cause readers to question that by asking: What about the Holy Cows? It is forbidden by Hinduism to to kill these sacred beasts. It is certainly not practical (the author also writes that Hindus are practical) to allow them to wander all over the place in great numbers. And traveling there I read signs warning that non-Hindus are forbidden entry into Hindu temples. In Nepal Buddhist Stupas were open to everyone. And Hindu nationalists, in the name of their religion, do carry out bloody attacks on Christians and Muslims.
Is Hinduism really as easygoing as the author indicates? The rising of the rest might be accompanied by more turmoil than the author expects.
Inconsistent details were sacrificed to time and space and perhaps the author's sweeping vision but the overall effect of the book was enlightening.

Well, at least Zakaria is not a complete fraud, as compared to Parag Khanna, whose book The Second World is astonishingly, breathtakingly dishonest.


Robert Kaplan describes this book as "a savvy, streetwise primer on dozens of individual countries that adds up to a coherent theory of global politics." (Which shows just how ignorant of much of Eurasia Kaplan truly is.) Having been generously praised in book reviews in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Financial Times, among other publications, I ordered the book with great interest. And as I began to read this book, I was at first shocked, and then increasingly appalled, at a systematic pattern of serious errors of fact, ludicrous assertions that jarred with reality, fundamental misunderstandings of basic economics or history, cheap clichés, and recorded conversations which struck me as obviously fabricated. Every chapter is riddled with astonishing flaws, but here I will simply address those dealing with the Balkans and the former Soviet Union.

Khanna's basic thesis is three-fold. He states the United States, the European Union, and China are the three dominant geo-political powers in the world today. He proceeds to argue that there is a "second world" of countries, belonging neither to the developed "first world" nor to the chronically underdeveloped "third world." And, Khanna writes, the big three global powers compete against one another for geo-political and economic advantage in this "second world," even as they themselves form regional alliances and seek to play the superpowers against one another.

None of these seem to be terribly original ideas. In his preface, Khanna states a wish to follow in the footsteps of English historian Toynbee, who in his retirement took a world tour. And in the second paragraph there is a foreboding of the tone of the book: Khanna states that a "leatherbound first edition of Toynbee's narrative" was his companion on his own world tour. Throughout, Khanna shows a predisposition for smarmy arrogance and condescension. And yet the book is shockingly empty of real insights, even as it boasts an index stretching to twenty-four pages, and an acknowledgment thanking some five hundred people. The impression is that Khanna wants you to know how many important people he knows and how many factoids he can fit into a 500 page book.

Some of the various, and numerous, factual errors that riddle the book are relatively trivial, but suggest serious sloppiness and disregard for getting facts right. For example, Yugoslavia was not part of Warsaw pact, as Khanna states. Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov was appointed to office in 1992 by Boris Yeltsin, and not by Vladimir Putin. Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia and Albania are not all smaller by population than Manhattan, and the death toll from the civil wars in former Yugoslavia was not greater than half a million. Other obviously wrong assertions seem to be made up simply to provide lurid background color to Khanna's travelogue: the former KGB headquarters in Moscow has not been turned into "a high-class disco," expensive Moscow malls do not charge entrance fees, and police road checkpoints in Uzbekistan do not stop and check all vehicles. And other gross misstatements of fact display a simple complete lack of understanding the history and culture of the countries of which he writes: the (Orthodox) Uspenky cave monastery in Crimea is not representative of Ukraine's "proud Catholic heritage," Zoran Djindjic was not the first democratically elected leader since World War II in former Yugoslavia , and in the 1980s Yugoslav republics like Bosnia and Macedonia were not richer than Spain. Many of Khanna's wildly wrong claims sound like local myths that he has taken at face value. I can easily imagine some misguided elderly Belgrade resident waxing nostalgically for the days "when every one of our republics was richer than Spain!"




Yet more of Khanna's assertions are not merely factually wrong, but far exceed the ludicrous. In the fast paced and dangerous Russian business world, "one is safe only in the sauna, where everyone is naked and no weapons are allowed." It was news to me to learn from Khanna that every winter "waves" of Russians and "thousands of Ukrainians" freeze to death in "crumbling heatless apartment blocks." And he employs gross mischaracterizations of fact to buttress his claims. For example, according to Khanna, in 2006 Greek GDP increased 25% when the government started to account for prostitution and cigarette smuggling in its figures. In fact, the government said it would include all unreported economic activity, mostly in construction and trade, but including a "small" amount for illegal activities such as smuggling. And this is merely a sampling of patently ridiculous claims.

And for a "foreign policy whiz-kid," Khanna makes numerous and serious analytical mistakes, showing a clear misunderstanding of economics, international institutions, and international relations. The unhedged statement, "Russia's diplomatic position is purely residual," will surely surprise diplomats from Brussels to Tokyo. Noting that Gazprom's market capitalization is $300 billion leads Khanna to the conclusion that Gazprom is one third of the Russian economy, confusing market capitalization with GDP. And his bald assertion that "[n]one of Central Asian legal systems have evolved beyond Kakfaaesque" is belied by the numerous successful legislative accomplishments of Kazakhstan and its quite sophisticated legal code, for example.

He has harsh words for the United States, bordering on hysteria. Likewise, he sees the European Union as a beacon of progress and a model for the future. And yet he betrays a clear lack of understanding of EU institutions. For example, Britain does not share with Turkey a similar status of "privileged partner" of the EU, converg[ing] with the EU only when it suits their interests." And while he manages to drop the names of hundreds of obscure statesmen and scholars, there is not one mention of Jean Monnet.

And this awful book is chock-a-block with cheap clichés. Vladimir Putin is a "steely former KGB official." A "Soviet era foreign ministry building" and "Soviet era apartment buildings" alike are "hulking." Here in Moscow, there is a "perpetually insecure business caste that lives each day like its last, partying with exotic lions and dominatrix dancers, complete with plenty of caviar." One must pity the "champagne-soaked, Hummer-driving scions" of Kiev, who must settle for "fancy nightclubs such as Decadence." And "Kiev, like Moscow, is a Potemkin village."

And many of the clichés regarding Russia and Ukraine are not merely examples of poor imagination and lack of writing skill, they are downright ugly. "From cars to construction, if something in Russia works it is probably European." Khanna obviously has not been to any modern Russian manufacturing facilities. He also writes that the Baltic states view "the formerly great Russian bear like an alcoholic uncle, with a mixture f pity and concern." In a stunning bit of cultural hubris, Khanna sneers "Georgians may be Christians, but they are not European in any meaningful sense - no matter how relentlessly they fly the EU flag across the capital city, Tbilisi."

But the worst moments of Khanna's book are when he quotes conversations that seem of such dubious authenticity as to make me believe they may be fabricated, or at best the result of very selective reporting, only relating those comments that fit within his pre-existing views. "'Our pride has suffered'" explains a "Moscow intellectual over a narrow glass of [of course] ice-chilled vodka, `but this only drives our nationalism further.'" In Kiev, the locals "give lifts to strangers for a token fare." Why? "We suffered enough together, so we still trust each other." There are just too many such (anonymous) quotations that fail to ring true to trust in the author's integrity. And he also reports statements by national leaders as if they were heard in personal conversation, yet in a curiously indirect fashion that suggests otherwise. "'To hell with the Russians!' fumed Saakashvili" sounds like reportage of a personal conversation between Khanna and the Georgian president, but I suspect a more honest account would read like "the President was quoted in the Financial Times as saying `to hell with the Russians.'"

And Khanna makes innumerable observations that he believes show particular insight, but are shocking banal if thought over for a mere moment. He notes dryly that Turkey is "a country that has fought wars with nearly all its neighbours." Well, so is France. And in fact just about every country which has been around for the 20th century, or earlier, has fought its neighbours at one time or another. (Actually, if you refer merely to the modern state of Turkey, and not with reference to its Ottoman predecessor, it has fought wars with none of its neighbors. Khanna is a kind of reverse-genius at getting facts 100% wrong.) He also notes with immense concern that "Russian and Chinese firms now control most of [Uzbekistan's] mineral deposits." It doesn't seem obvious to Khanna that Russia and China are quite natural trading partners and sources of foreign investment.

Overall, just about the worst book I've ever read, and exceedingly dishonest to boot.

All I can say, what is it that the legal world is doing nothing? The case against W is clear, solid and a cake walk, if only someone will take the first step. I guess, despite what the author thinks about the JFK case, no one wants to be as brave as the only one to bring a court case in the assassination, Jim Garrison. A lot of fear in taking this to court, but it must be done.

And, for that matter, where is the press in regard to this book and what it contains?

If the Vincent Bugliosi that wrote this book was the same one that prosecuted Charles Manson, Manson surely would have been found Not Guilty and would probably be a major recording star for years, if he could keep himself from killing anyone.

Where to begin with this silly book? The book would better serve as Exhibit A in getting Mr. Bugliosi committed for suffering from Bush derangement syndrome. What he calls evidence is pitifully, laughably weak.

I wonder how Charles Manson would review this book?

Bugliosi has a precise and orderly mind. He gives relentless example after example of intentional lies, obstruction, and hiding that has resulted in so many deaths.

This book is a good reminder of how numb we have become listening to our politicians sidestep issues, lie, and cheat, with full impunity and immunity, because putting Bush's Iraq was history in a legal framework with logic and commonsense, and without the media's politic glisando, helps to see Bush & Co's war for wat it is: murder and conspiracy to commit murder.

Impeachment is not enough. You don't fire someone and send them home with a pension for murder.

The more I read, the more I continue to be disgusted. If the death penalty is ever appropriate, Bush is the case.

This is one of the greatest and truest books I have read for ages! He really covers it well and repeats the worst aspects of the entire mess as it appears we have to do as it seems people are shocked into submission by what has gone on. Otherwise we'd see much more obvious anger than we have! We have to think about also that the Patriot Act wasn't written during the night of September 11, 2001, so that obviously was in the wings waiting to be foisted upon the people. And since the terrorists supposedly didn't like our freedoms, the elite are seeing that those are being eroded subtley but surely, a little at a time! Thank you Mr. Bugliosi for taking precious time to lay it on the line! You are a true patriot and care about America and its people! That speaks volumes.

In The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder, Mr. Bugliosi makes clear not only his righteous outrage over the clear criminal activity of the current President of the United States, but actually lays out a legal argument that could be used as a basis for indicting and convicting Bush for not only mass murder, but war crimes, genocide, and various other nefarious acts.

In biting, no holds barred language, Bugliosi takes the entire Bush Administration to task, showing that not only is the current White House occupant guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, as well as treason, but shows how this man must clearly be a sociopath due to complete lack of empathy towards those he has ordered off to war under false pretenses.

Any prosecutor worth his salt must read this book, and all Americans, pro Bushies and anti-Bushie alike, should take the time to sit down and hear the truth about our glorious leaders of today.

One of the most significant books of the year, with an acute restatement of a leftist viewpoint freed from the miasma of leftist dogma and jargon. The basic critique restates the perennial issue of the appropropriation of science as ideology, here the abuse of free market economics for purposes of exploitation. The critique of Freidman and the Chicago boys is as plain as it is devastating, cutting through the mystifications of market mythologies to see the people behind them driving the agenda. The connection to the history of mind control 'research' from the fifties onward is especially interesting. Hopefully the reader will read the book and come away able to cut through the pronouncements on economics he sees in the public media.

This is an extremely well-researched book. I invite the reader to set aside his or her political biases and read this with an objective mind. The depth of research found here is simply amazing. Klein makes her case and makes it well. This is the most comprehensively infuriating book I have ever read.

This book does a tremendous job decribing the pain and suffering brought on the citizens of the world from corporate power at all cost. But, the book is not fairly written. It only presents one side of an argument.

For example, the reason that these countries needed such immediate attention was that they were suffering from hyperinflation with more than half of their citizens employed by corrupt inefficient governments. In a world of corporate corruption, it is hard to remember how corrupt and inefficient governments can be, but trust me, they will bankrupt a country quickly if given the chance.

It turns out when you look at the statistical evidence across all the countries of the world, that capitalist institutions create not only greater wealth for citizens, but surprisingly, this wealth and income is more fairly divided across all citizens. And democratic institutions go hand in hand with capitalism, they both try to create greater individual choice and freedom and academics have shown that greater democratic institutions like the vote, civil liberties and a free press encourage economic growth in a country.

Friedman's mistake was not in supporting capitalism as a method for developing countries to escape poverty, but in trusting big corporations to implement fair rules for capitalism. Instead they instituted monopoly power by industry, lobbying power to write legislation and governmental control to protect their established business positions. Friedman never saw that big American corporations were violating his ideal world of competitive capitalism just as much as his much hated labor unions and big government.

Just Klein's description of Iraq is worth the price of the book. Why has the war dragged on and on? Because defense and reconstruction contractors want it to so as to be able to soak the American taxpayer for as long as possible. Why do we fight wars that our people are against, because they are profitable.

This book is a great starting point for those interested in the alternative, behind-the-scenes version of history over the past 35 years. It tells about U.S. involvement in South America, particularly Argentina and Chile and how our government supported totalitarian regimes to further the Chicago School economic agenda; the ANC and apartheid Africa and why it failed; disaster capitalism's impact on Sri Lanka and Thailand after the tsunami; disaster capitalism's impact on New Orleans; and where disaster capitalists went wrong in their dealings in Iraq.

Naomi Klein truly went above and beyond in creating a concise, accurate portrayal of what's been going on in the sidelines over the last few decades. I'd be very interested to read her other book "No Logo" in the future.

This book explains the economic disasters of the last few decades. It connects the dots. I finally understand why international organizations such as the World Bank insist on destroying the economy of every country which encounters a financial glitch, all under the guise of providing help. It explains why the glitches.
I wish that, in all the cases surveyed, it covered the role of churches and other institutions which claim to be on the side of poor people (and usually are not).

I love a good parody, and I thoroughly enjoy anything that pokes fun at the evil fools who have destroyed our country. However, this book is so lame it isn't even amusing. Save your money.

Ok, it's cute and makes a good, silly gift when paired with the real "Goodnight Moon". There is so much better stuff out there about this guy that this is not the wittiest nor the saddest work out there. Cute Idea - not much substance.

Stupid, boring and like most liberal crap useless. What are the Bush haters going to do after January?

Must reading for GENUINELY patriotic Americans! If you love our country, and are appalled by the abuses of the last 8 years, read this brilliant parody more than once.
Note the titles of the books on the shelf, watch as the scales of justice become more and more unbalanced, watch the profiteers --who have used the Irag war as a way to transfer billions from the American taxpayers to their pockets -- pile up their cash.
Will it be "Goodnight heirs"? Pray we wake up in time, and not sign on for 4 more years of this national nightmare.

I love this book. It is filled with truth. It is funny, it is dark, and it is very scary. It is also filled with truth. How anyone can find this offensive obviously doesn't grasp the truth of what is happening to our country. Yes, Goodnight Moon was, is a wonderul book for our children. Filled with quiet, peacful moments to put our children to bed with hoping they will have beautiful dreams. However, this book is intended for us, the adults of children, to ensure that we see this administration for what it is and in hopes to change our future so that our children can have peacful dreams again. I do wish Goodnight Moon was the reality. It isn't. Unfortunately Goodnight Bush is.

I can see both good and bad in Ron Paul's book THE REVOLUTION, but let me say right off the bat that I do not support his unrelenting libertarian attitude that government is the source of all evil. Paul rightly points out many problems that we face today - high federal budget deficit, runaway health care costs, belligerent foreign policy, presidential illegalities, and on and on - but in my view these are not the result of government per se, but rather are the fault of the astoundingly bad leadership we in the U.S. have suffered from in the last 10 or so years. There is an increasingly common view, which I sympathize with, that Republicans have deliberately tried to ruin government functions in this country in an attempt to cause more people to reject ALL government. See John Dean's 2007 book Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches for a good example of this argument.

To take one illustrative example of the problems described in this book, Paul entirely blames government for the high cost of health care in the U.S. Here he quotes his hero, the economist Ludwig von Mises, who said that "government interventions create unintended consequences that lead to calls for further intervention, and so on into a destructive spiral of more and more government control." Yet one glaring discrepancy here is that most developed countries have much MORE government intervention in their health care systems than we do, yet health care costs in the U.S. are much HIGHER than anywhere else in the world! Nor does he mention the abuses of health insurance companies in this country. What can I as an individual do to deal with those companies? We need government to set some fairness standards here. But Paul would never propose such a thing, since that would dilute his black-and-white view that government is all bad and private enterprise is all good. So he just ignores the problem. The same is largely true with the environment, where he at least supports the concept of environmental protection, yet barely discusses the matter, and does not mention how to deal with the worldwide problem of global warming. Might we need government to do something here? Heavens!

But as I said at the beginning, I do agree with Paul in some regards, such as his emphasis that we must roll back our foreign empire for both economic and practical reasons. He has been an adamant foe of our invasion of Iraq, and here is an issue that we agree. What I am opposed to about THE REVOLUTION is Paul's relentless anti-government tirade that extends to virtually all issues, and which I believe is overly simplistic, sometimes to the point of absurdity.

In short, a liberal manifesto (although not nearly as liberal as the Bush/Cheney crowd.)

the bad:

* conservatives, by definition, do not go around calling for 'revolutions'
* his take on free trade is liberalism on steroids -- a conservative believes in free trade only as far as it benefits the interests of the home country. Ron takes it too philosphically, and believes in trade with no restrictions.
* liberals always have their heads in the clouds, and looking to establish utopias on earth. Conservatives roll up their sleeves and deal with the reality we have to face. Ron has his head in the clouds, just like Bush.

the good:

* I agree with his take on the military, the gold standard, and minding our own business

Overall, a good read with some good moments.

What an enlightening book and excellent call to action. It reminds voters why associating yourself with a 'party' is as politically productive as investigating why dirt has a bad taste. A real wakeup call to how far the US Federal Government has gone to ignore, destroy, and bastardize the Constitution. Fire Congress and lets elect some law-makers who will obey the law!

The United States has managed to go from being the biggest creditor nation (a good thing) to the biggest debtor nation (a bad thing) in a mere 30 years. We have our politicians and the federal reserve to thank for this. We can all continue pretending that there is not an 800 lb gorilla in the room and just wait for a total collapse or we can heed the advice of Dr. Paul and people like him. It's hard to believe that we fought for our independence from England less than 250 years ago and we've apparantely forgotten why we did so. The constitution is that reminder. It is startling how many personal freedoms and liberties we are willing to keep giving up. We need someone to fight for us. The government is supposed to serve the people; not the people serve the government. This book is a great reminder of the way things were intended to be and where we are straying from the path.

Too few people realize that our country was founded on the principles of liberty and limited government. Now, government has grown beyond the Founding Fathers' wildest nightmares, and much of the precious liberty that they fought for has been lost.

Ron Paul offers an insight into how things were meant to be, and also offers a glimmer of hope that things can be fixed. It's an easy, yet thought-provoking read.

Highly recommended.

Barack Obama has changed politics. Regardless of your social, economic, or political beliefs, he has altered the way many think of a presidential candidate. In "The Audacity of Hope" Barack catalogs his rise to become the presumptive nominee of the Democrat Party. He explains each step by organizing categories such as, our constitution, faith, opportunity, politics, and family. He presents and explains his beliefs on many important issues that face modern voters. He recalls his failures, elucidates the present, and sets his future goals. "The Audacity of Hope" is all that it claims to be (do not expect a numbered game plan to solve war and global poverty). The nostalgia and love of his family members alongside politics is interesting to read of and I recommend this book to both Democrats and Republicans. It will help you become more knowledgeable of Barack's plans or prepare you to defend your own. Plus, his writing is as moving as his speeches can be!
Thanks for reading,
C.K.

The Audacity of Hope is as good a title as any for this book by a young, rookie Senator. And the hope at the heart of his writing and thoughts is well placed, for in this, Barack Obama's Second book, despair lurks in the margins.

He as much as admits to this at several places in the book. He sees the country so completely divided on certain issues that finding a solution to the myriad social and economic problems connected to those issues seems almost like a dream.

Indeed, there is one constant subtext throughout the book: Barack's restlessness at the slow pace of governmental change. The rules and the glacial pace of Senate procedures simultaneously fascinate and frustrate him. He is in awe of just how good the framers of the constitution set up this great political experiment. However, the machine of the Senate, and the current business of politics, seem to him an almost torturous affair. Early in the book, Barack explains that what is debated day in and day out in the Senate is not (contrary to what most laymen perceive,) what the NEW laws should be. Instead, most of the time is spent trying to figure out what the EXISTING laws actually mean. (This experience in the Senate seems to have opened his eyes to just how important the appointment of Judges are.)

He bristles at the tediousness of some of this, and he openly wonders at just how quickly he may find himself caught up in the machinery that has consumed so many before him. For instance he starts one chapter talking about just how nice it is to fly on private jets. He is very descriptive of the pleasures of this elite way of travel. But he is also aware of just how much it separates him from the everyday American's experience.

More apparent though is Barack's ambitious nature seem too large for a long term career in the Senate,

He wants a larger stage on which to operate and to articulate his thoughts, and this book seems to be a prelude to that.

The Audacity of Hope is split up into large chapters encompassing big topics, (Race, Faith, etc.,) and within those headings, Obama struggles with the conflicting and seemingly contradictory stances on many sides of the issues. If you follow politics in the news, many of Obama's analogies and examples will be familiar to you, but if you largely stay away from politics, this volume will give you a pretty good idea of what he honestly thinks regarding these issues.

The answer is simple: Like many in America, he struggles.

One of the most telling sequences of the book is when he talks about how the countdown for an approaching Roll Call vote. He laments that when complicated issues, involving many complex factors, come down to the final vote, you almost always are wishing for more time.

The book is political, and more specifically campaign-oriented in nature, so it can often get a bit wonkish and, well, boring, but Barack has a way of bringing it back to simplicity with a humorous aside.

In light of his more recent popularity, (one hundred thousand people seeing him in Berlin,) it is interesting to read his account of traveling around Illinois alone as a virtually unknown candidate and sometimes speaking to 4 or 5 people. My favorite anecdote involves his invitation to a Union gathering during a primary for one office he was seeking. While he sat onstage waiting to speak, the man introducing him basically announced that the Union would be endorsing somebody else, but adds that "Mr. Obama is here to give us his thoughts."

Once finished with the book, you can understand a little more about Barack Obama's political thinking. And a little about the gamble he seems to be taking in the upcoming election for President of the United States. Obama, if I read correctly, is gambling that MOST people in the United States feel as he does. That most people struggle with these issues in the same ways and would like to see an end to partisan politics.

Well, the book seems to have way too much audacity, and not much hope.

This book to me was a great primer for people who aspire to be voted into an office. Some very interesting insights.

Senator Obama makes a compelling case for positive change. He builds his reasoned case from history, bringing in his personal experience and beliefs. I recommend especially the CD version of this book as you can hear the Senator's voice, so it is much like an extended, compelling speech. He covers several critical topics, providing recommended policy changes for each. To anyone interested in the potential that an Obama administration would have for America, please listen to or read what the Senator has to say.

not as well written as George Tenet's book, but some good inside info as to the deception behind the "leak", and the drumming up of the reason to go to war with Iraq. Skipped over the chapter about his grandfather tho... wasn't much interested in that topic. Seemed to be more of a "filler" chapter to make the book a bit larger. All in all, some good inside info into our current administration.

I read this book mostly out of curiosity. I'm glad I did. It's nice to see someone who has a conscience and says that perhaps he was in error, but due to the fact that he was misled. Mr. McClellan appears to be a responsible type, who realized he was used, and has come out to publicly set the record straight. There are those who would take the Mafia approach and claim that Mr. McClellan should have kept things to himself to protect those above him, although they were doing things to mislead the American people. He chose not to take this road and showed us all that mistakes had been made, and we are still paying for them. Others who were around him at the time continue to be deceptive. Mr McClellan should be proud of what he has done.

This is an incredibly frank account of the inner workings of the Bush Whitehouse. This is not from some anti-Bush liberal but a member of the inner circle. Scott McClellan was a loyal "Bushie" from almost the beginning in Texas. His account of systematic deceit which he calls (but did not coin) "the permanent campaign" is telling and alarming.
The book is not a "settle the score" account from a disgruntled employee. In fact, McClellan spends a lot of time defending Bush as a person, his policies and many of his actions. He does not, however, pull any punches when it comes to the activities of coordinated spin, misrepresentations, and out-right lies to the American people, which he was a participant in. Lies which, among other things, landed the US in a costly and unnecessary war in Iraq.
McClellan explains the actual rational the President had for war (and it had little to do with terror or WMDs or anything Bush sold to the American people).
I believe this book will be the definitive answer to many of the questions future historians have about "What Happened" during this disastrous time in our history.
Everyone who cares about America should read this book.

This essence of this book was covered brilliantly by Frank Rich in "The Greatest Story Ever Sold" - early on in this book McClellan talks of how he witnessed hazing in his college fraternity (and by witnessing it condoned this behavior until the authorities blew the whistle). THEN he came clean!

Since he spends a lot of time talking of himself he points out other incidents where he is in a position to effect change and just stands by - naivete? or clueless? or just blindsided by events.

Now comes his being on the scene for all Valerie Plame scandal, the entry of the US into the war on Iraq and other major gaffes of this administration - for many years he has known and worked with W - once again he stands by the wayside as these horrifying events occur and says nothing, until someone else blows the whistle - the result? This poorly crafted book. Future readers won't be able to know what the heck is going on in his book as there is little context and serious omissions.

There are other books that tell the story much better - I paid the Kindle price but it was not worth even that!

More lying liars and the lying lies they tell. Only wish there were a way to give zero stars; I've already expended too much energy on this garbage.

This man is a true rough around the edges guy who has been serving his country since his youth, like his family. He is a rough and tumble guy who will tell you like it is with no sugar coating, excess calories nor fat and this comes too much for some to handle. He has risked his life serving his country in numerous ways and in his Epilogue shows what could happen. I really admire this countryman in his long legacy of non-conventionality ... which is not unlike our founding fathers. He has the guts to spill the required patriotic blood for our tree of liberty and the very least everyone could do is read just 300 pages.

To sum up this book, the best thing Jesse did for the country was move to Mexico. The best thing he can do for the country right now is stay in Mexico.

This book is written by a person who just wants to pat himself on the back and talk all the great things he did and all the things he knows better than everyone else. By the way Jesse, independent means that you don't support either party or at least don't gush over one of them. It seems that Jesse cannot stop trashing the Republicans both in their agenda and in their individual personalities, while admiring the Democrats (Bush bad Clinton great). Guess what Jesse, that makes you a left of center democrat or essentialy a main stream Democrat.

By the way, I wonder how many books Jesse would have sold if the front cover of this book would of had the picture of his Fu-Manchu beard and not the clean cut version that is used. I would hazzard to guess not many. Its funny for a guy that keeps talking about being true to ones belief and being yourself, he cleaned up his image to sell himself and his book pretty quickly. It just goes to show that Jesse knows how to play the game just as well as those he likes to put down.

First, let me be upfront with you- I am a wrestling fan. But not in the traditional sense, but rather, I love to watch what wrestling presents to its fans on TV, and then distill what is really happening behind the scenes. Fast forward to late May/early June, when Governor Ventura was making the talk show rounds, promoting this book. He landed on Hannity and Colmes on Fox, and had both of those two stammering for a response. He said some very controversial things; not just for the sensation factor, but because he believed these things to be true. Controversial topics like the Kennedy assassination, the Twin Towers disaster on 9/11. These comments intrigued me.
Add to that, his startling rise to the top of Minnesota politics in the early 2000's-- well, to me that cinched it. I wanted to know more, and this book purported to give me the low down.

About the book- if it were mine to publish, I would make sure that my editor cleaned up all of the typographical errors. There were many in the first third of the book, and it was kind of distracting. Aside from that, this book was a terrific read, told mostly as a first person recollection, with the narrative weaving between Gov. Ventura's personal history and his travel in his motor home to Baja. Along the story, his wife Terry adds some interesting observations from her perspective, and to me, that rounded out the narrative and indicated what a tight, great relationship the two share. This is a fun read, with interesting trivia and tidbits about third party politics that should make most Americans in the center realize that there is more going on in government that is reported in the news. Contrasted with Scott McClellan's book, this says many of the same things about the current political climate, but is a much more pleasurable read. (Sorry, I find Scott boring).

Pick this one up- you won't regret it. You will learn a lot about third party politics, and a man who wouldn't fall in line with the political climate of today.

The title says "Don't Start the Revolution Without Me!," but I think Gov. Ventura is the one who has started the revolution already.

There are several things that you can take away from Jesse Ventura and find honorable, not just from this book, but from his life. He was active duty in the navy during Vietnam, he became governor of a state as third party, (something that is near impossible) and he has always been a true independent which is truly rare at this current point in history. He brings up some great points in this book on where the country is, and where it is headed. Civil liberties are being erased, we are in a massive debt, and the expansion of the federal government is getting out of control. However he loses credibility when he writes of his meeting with Castro, and how he admires Castro and Che. If you don't like where America is headed, you only need to look at Cuba to see a country with no civil liberties, no economic freedom, and a nation who has tortured critics of the government, and forced thousands to flee. Even if you are in the dark, and don't believe Castro is a tyrant, there is no way, you can argue he is for less government, something that Ventura claims to support himself. This government is full of liars, as we have definitely seen, but when you put all this trust in a lying murderer as Ventura does with Castro, it waters down and hurts the good points, and real criticism of our country that should be addressed.

I used to watch Jesse on Monday Night WWF Wrestling. He was co-announcer with Gorilla Monsoon. Jesse was the 'Bad Guy' advocate. He wore a beret, feathers and shades and I thought he was pretty cool. I've semi-followed him since. I thought it was great when he was elected governor. In all fairness i'll say that this book was very readable and well written and the guy has a lot of good ideas. HOWEVER........
He brags about his part in Trade with China which has done nothing but hurt this country AS A WHOLE. Our industrial base is shipped to china,,,they become rich selling us their products, they buy steel, food, and fuel and all the prices skyrocket for Americans. Of course if you are a Pro Wrestler, Talk Show Host, or a Politician you don't have to worry about your job being shipped off to China.
His part on Mohammed Ali was 'touching' but how can a Vietnam Vet respect the guy. He was a DRAFT DODGER. That is an insult to Vietnam Vets,,black and white. Lots of guys didn't want to go for lots of reasons.....BUT THEY WENT. If you respect Ali, why not respect all the guys that bailed out to Canada, and all the other ways to beat the draft. How about Jane Fonda??? I was expecting some big recitation on her,,,after all,,she believed in what she did...
He has a picture of Che Guevara in his house,,,and he sounded like a kid that just saw Santa Clause when he met with Castro. Hey,,,those guys were the same Communists we were fighting all those years,,,along with China. They murdered millions and millions of people. They were bad guys then and they are bad guys now. You can tell alot about a person by the people that he respects. And it dosen't take a rocket scientist, Sherlock Holmes, or Fidel Castro to figure out that there was something funky about the JFK assasination. I think it hurt his feelings because RFK jr got to spend 4 hours with Castro and Jesse only got an hour.
I thought Jesse was going to be like a BREATH OF FRESH AIR,,,but from the book there is just another self-serving politician wearing a tie-dyed t-shirt, a dew rag and feathers.
Jesse is probably a good guy,,He'd be fun to party with,,,and if I ever had the chance to vote for him,,,I would,,,just because he's not ANOTHER PENCIL-NECK POLITICIAN,,, but after reading the book, I can't figure out why Jesse would want to have a Revolution,,, he has it made in the shade as it is...