Book Description
From the most highly respected analyst of foreign policy writing today, a story of wasted opportunity and squandered prestige: a critique of the last three U.S. presidents' foreign policy.
America's most distinguished commentator on foreign policy, former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, offers a reasoned but unsparing assessment of the last three presidential administrations' foreign policy. Though spanning less than two decades, these administrations cover a vitally important turning point in world history: the period in which the United States, having emerged from the Cold War with unprecedented power and prestige, managed to squander both in a remarkably short time. This is a tale of decline: from the competent but conventional thinking of the first Bush administration, to the well-intentioned self-indulgence of the Clinton administration, to the mortgaging of America's future by the "suicidal statecraft" of the second Bush administration. Brzezinski concludes with a chapter on how America can regain its lost prestige. This scholarly yet highly opinionated book is sure to be both controversial and influential.
Customer Reviews:
The idealism is better than the realism .......2007-08-29
Intelligence is no substitute for integrity. In surveying the world - situation and the role three U.S. Presidents had after the fall of the Soviet Union Brezinski fails to give prominent place to one major development he himself had considerable responsibility for i.e. the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. It was he who as Carter's foreign policy chief - advisor supervised the fall of the Shah in Iran, and did nothing to prevent the rise of the radical Islamic regime there. He also helped put into place the Mujadeen in Afghanistan, and they have been a key element in the rise of Global Islam worldwide.
In this book he focuses on what he considers the missed opportunities of the U.S. after the fall of the Soviet Union. He is especially critical of the current President.
Brezinski does have interesting things to say about current American weaknesses including the balance of payments problem, the problem of a loss of kind of moral discipline.
His idea of the United States leading mankind to a new era of dignity and freedom is a good one. And for his 'idealism' expressed most fully in the final chapter the book is worth reading.
DR. BRZEZINSKI SHOULD BE RUNNING THIS COUNTRY.......2007-07-25
I feel strongly, that this book says what most rational people in the "world!" are thinking. It is pure and clear truth. It could have been a lot less disasterous for our country, if Dr. Brzezinski could have tutored bush/cheney/rice, on how to lead a great nation with "integrity, honor and some backbone." Can we find a way for a man like Dr. Brzezinski,(who was born in Europe/Poland), to run for President?! Fantastic book! I read it in one sitting.
Second Chance: 3 presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower.......2007-07-21
Grim yet fairly non-biased assessment of the administrations since the fall of the wall. There is some hope at the end of the book, but it will take an extraordinary turn of events to keep America from losing its place in global stature.
His critical eye on the current administration is no nonsense and, sadly, accurate.
J'Accuse.......2007-07-08
This is nothing more than a scathing indictment on eight years of GWB misrule.
To distinguish his indictment from other partisan rhetoric, ZB has placed his argument in a much wider and rational perspective. He has reviewed also the missteps of the previous two US Presidents in the foreign policy arena, and the lost chances of securing and cementing a true global leadership position for USA.
What is so different with the current regime is of course not just a matter of lost chances but colossal cost to US interests abroad. Not to mention lack of any significant progress in any key domestic agenda issues to balance it all.
ZB tries to make the argument at the end that all is not lost, and US still has a chance to regain its leadership position following certain steps.
His argument is not very credible though. He ignores the fact that US, as a nation, thinks and feels very differently than the one of 50s and 60s which put US on a moral path to global leadership. Things are indeed different, and second chance seems to be wishful thinking mostly.
Writing is excellent as expected, delivery and reasoning forceful and complete. Interesting reading for those of us contemplating the next chapter.
Brilliant. A must read as we approach the future election they are boring us with ..........2007-06-28
I happen to hear this guy on Charlie Rose the other night and went out and bought his book. The book isnt as interesting as he is in an interview live but its well worth the read.
His analysis of the past three administrations is superb. It is balanced and I think offers great insight into the hits and misses of our leaders. He goes on to explain his views on the world post Russia and our missed opportunites. His close of post 2008 I would love to hear discussed by him and others.
An important book for this country. Get it and read it and act.
Amazon.com
Barack Obama's first book, Dreams from My Father, was a compelling and moving memoir focusing on personal issues of race, identity, and community. With his second book The Audacity of Hope, Obama engages themes raised in his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, shares personal views on faith and values and offers a vision of the future that involves repairing a "political process that is broken" and restoring a government that has fallen out of touch with the people. We had the opportunity to ask Senator Obama a few questions about writing, reading, and politics--see his responses below. --Daphne Durham
20 Second Interview: A Few Words with Barack Obama
Q: How did writing a book that you knew would be read so closely by so many compare to writing your first book, when few people knew who you were?
A: In many ways, Dreams from My Father was harder to write. At that point, I wasn't even sure that I could write a book. And writing the first book really was a process of self-discovery, since it touched on my family and my childhood in a much more intimate way. On the other hand, writing The Audacity of Hope paralleled the work that I do every day--trying to give shape to all the issues that we face as a country, and providing my own personal stamp on them.
Q: What is your writing process like? You have such a busy schedule, how did you find time to write?
A: I'm a night owl, so I usually wrote at night after my Senate day was over, and after my family was asleep--from 9:30 p.m. or so until 1 a.m. I would work off an outline--certain themes or stories that I wanted to tell--and get them down in longhand on a yellow pad. Then I'd edit while typing in what I'd written.
Q: If readers are to come away from The Audacity of Hope with one action item (a New Year's Resolution for 2007, perhaps?), what should it be?
A: Get involved in an issue that you're passionate about. It almost doesn't matter what it is--improving the school system, developing strategies to wean ourselves off foreign oil, expanding health care for kids. We give too much of our power away, to the professional politicians, to the lobbyists, to cynicism. And our democracy suffers as a result.
Q: You're known for being able to work with people across ideological lines. Is that possible in today's polarized Washington?
A: It is possible. There are a lot of well-meaning people in both political parties. Unfortunately, the political culture tends to emphasize conflict, the media emphasizes conflict, and the structure of our campaigns rewards the negative. I write about these obstacles in chapter 4 of my book, "Politics." When you focus on solving problems instead of scoring political points, and emphasize common sense over ideology, you'd be surprised what can be accomplished. It also helps if you're willing to give other people credit--something politicians have a hard time doing sometimes.
Q: How do you make people passionate about moderate and complex ideas?
A: I think the country recognizes that the challenges we face aren't amenable to sound-bite solutions. People are looking for serious solutions to complex problems. I don't think we need more moderation per se--I think we should be bolder in promoting universal health care, or dealing with global warming. We just need to understand that actually solving these problems won't be easy, and that whatever solutions we come up with will require consensus among groups with divergent interests. That means everybody has to listen, and everybody has to give a little. That's not easy to do.
Q: What has surprised you most about the way Washington works?
A: How little serious debate and deliberation takes place on the floor of the House or the Senate.
Q: You talk about how we have a personal responsibility to educate our children. What small thing can the average parent (or person) do to help improve the educational system in America? What small thing can make a big impact?
A: Nothing has a bigger impact than reading to children early in life. Obviously we all have a personal obligation to turn off the TV and read to our own children; but beyond that, participating in a literacy program, working with parents who themselves may have difficulty reading, helping their children with their literacy skills, can make a huge difference in a child's life.
Q: Do you ever find time to read? What kinds of books do you try to make time for? What is on your nightstand now?
A: Unfortunately, I had very little time to read while I was writing. I'm trying to make up for lost time now. My tastes are pretty eclectic. I just finished Marilynne Robinson's Gilead, a wonderful book. The language just shimmers. I've started Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin, which is a great study of Lincoln as a political strategist. I read just about anything by Toni Morrison, E.L. Doctorow, or Philip Roth. And I've got a soft spot for John le Carre.
Q: What inspires you? How do you stay motivated?
A: I'm inspired by the people I meet in my travels--hearing their stories, seeing the hardships they overcome, their fundamental optimism and decency. I'm inspired by the love people have for their children. And I'm inspired by my own children, how full they make my heart. They make me want to work to make the world a little bit better. And they make me want to be a better man.
Book Description
“A government that truly represents these Americans–that truly serves these Americans–will require a different kind of politics. That politics will need to reflect our lives as they are actually lived. It won’t be pre-packaged, ready to pull off the shelf. It will have to be constructed from the best of our traditions and will have to account for the darker aspects of our past. We will need to understand just how we got to this place, this land of warring factions and tribal hatreds. And we’ll need to remind ourselves, despite all our differences, just how much we share: common hopes, common dreams, a bond that will not break.”
–from
The Audacity of Hope
In July 2004, Barack Obama electrified the Democratic National Convention with an address that spoke to Americans across the political spectrum. One phrase in particular anchored itself in listeners’ minds, a reminder that for all the discord and struggle to be found in our history as a nation, we have always been guided by a dogged optimism in the future, or what Senator Obama called “the audacity of hope.”
Now, in
The Audacity of Hope, Senator Obama calls for a different brand of politics–a politics for those weary of bitter partisanship and alienated by the “endless clash of armies” we see in congress and on the campaign trail; a politics rooted in the faith, inclusiveness, and nobility of spirit at the heart of “our improbable experiment in democracy.” He explores those forces–from the fear of losing to the perpetual need to raise money to the power of the media–that can stifle even the best-intentioned politician. He also writes, with surprising intimacy and self-deprecating humor, about settling in as a senator, seeking to balance the demands of public service and family life, and his own deepening religious commitment.
At the heart of this book is Senator Obama’s vision of how we can move beyond our divisions to tackle concrete problems. He examines the growing economic insecurity of American families, the racial and religious tensions within the body politic, and the transnational threats–from terrorism to pandemic–that gather beyond our shores. And he grapples with the role that faith plays in a democracy–where it is vital and where it must never intrude. Underlying his stories about family, friends, members of the Senate, even the president, is a vigorous search for connection: the foundation for a radically hopeful political consensus.
A senator and a lawyer, a professor and a father, a Christian and a skeptic, and above all a student of history and human nature, Senator Obama has written a book of transforming power. Only by returning to the principles that gave birth to our Constitution, he says, can Americans repair a political process that is broken, and restore to working order a government that has fallen dangerously out of touch with millions of ordinary Americans. Those Americans are out there, he writes–“waiting for Republicans and Democrats to catch up with them.”
Customer Reviews:
A must read!.......2007-10-10
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book. I read this book a while back, and I re-read it just last week now that Obama is a major Presidential contender. This book is very well written in terms of style and syntax, plus it takes us on a journey of man grappling serioulsy with issues of hope, worth, justice, patriotism and social obligation. It seems that whatever the outcome of the election, Obama believes in decency and hope and has pledged to do his part to make this a better society. It reads well, makes you think and makes you actually glimpse an American living closer to its ideal. This is a must read!
awesome.......2007-10-10
This was am amazing book by an amazing man. Really unique viewpoint and an interesting perspective with which to view American politics. Obama is obviously brilliant and is an American political historian...love that aspect, especially. His passion for this country and making the lives of the American people better shines through on every page. His humility, honesty and humanity are refreshing. He's idealistic, but no doormat. The man has drive and ambition...wonderful qualities for someone looking to make the lives of others better. He's smart, genuine and sees the big picture...what's best for America as a whole. He gives the reader not just his opinions or snippets of American history, but also a candid look at his own personal journey. He's obviously a Democrat, but shows appreciation and admiration for some individual Repbulicans, too. Wonderfully refreshing change from the usual hatemongering between parties that has become the ugly norm in America in recent years.
Obama Stakes Out Centrist Ground.......2007-10-09
I routinely give history books five stars, but I am compelled to limit this one to four. The political manifesto is limited as a genre, and I was not quite ready after Obama's last book to be brought back down to earth. The stories in this book, while by turns sad and funny, are no longer told for their own sakes like the ones in "Dreams from my Father," but to illustrate a point. Still, Obama manages to be polemical without being strident. When they deserve it in his view, he bestows credit and even praise on individual Republicans, and quotes the sage advice that President Bush once gave him -- that he was rising so spectacularly that people on his own side might come to see him as a threat. He also has a lot of praise for his staff members, listing the more senior ones by name and telling stories of things he and they discovered at the same time.
The leading characteristic of this book is that Obama strives to be Informed about every issue he comments on. Accordingly, he attacks those on the extreme poles of the debate on all these issues for encouraging their constituents not to be informed. He will frequently say, in so many words, that while Republicans need to acknowledge X, Democrats equally need to acknowledge Y. The eighth chapter, "The World Beyond Our Borders," indicates even if his more recent rhetoric did not that if you are looking for a candidate who will get our troops out of Iraq quickly, Barack Obama is probably not your man. He reminds me of no one, in fact, so much as Bill Clinton in his knowledgeable approach to the issues, bolstered frequently by statistics.
My favorite chapters were the third chapter -- in which Obama sets forth his view of the Constitution, and talks of his respectful meeting with onetime Klansman Sen. Robert Byrd -- and the sixth chapter, where he talks about religion and his race against Alan Keyes (having discussed most of his other political opponents in the previous four chapters). While he beat Keyes handily, Keyes made him more uncomfortable than the others for his implicit charge that Obama's faith is insincere or "adulterated," the word Obama uses. From this chapter, however, I gleaned that Obama's faith is hard-won. He had higher expectations of religion perhaps than most, a higher threshhold that he insisted it meet before he would embrace it; but he is sincere. Keyes has now entered the Presidential race (his third try for his party's nomination); I suspect that more than anything he wants another crack at Obama. In the last chapter before the epilogue, we see Obama as a family man, a side of him which didn't make it into his first book.
Obama writes far more readable and entertaining books than the Clintons do -- which doesn't necessarily mean he would make a better President than either of them. But I am glad he exists. He is one of those singular people who seek to prove we as a nation are who we say we are. If I was teaching American history in an inner-city school, and was not compelled to use the same books as everyone else in the state, Obama would be one of five or so authors I would assign. (Did I mention his insights on the need to completely restructure public education, shared in the fifth chapter, "Opportunity"? He's a bit short on details of his solution here, however.) As mentioned above, I give this book four stars.
Hope and Compromise.......2007-10-04
I am particularly struck by the contrast of Obama and George W. Bush. Obama stays in touch with the masses by talking in air terminals and wherever he finds them in public. Jim Wallis (author of "God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It") comments from his meeting the President:
"And he (George W. Bush) really did listen, more than presidents often do. He also asked questions. One sounded lofty, yet it resonated with those of us seated around the room: 'How do I speak to the soul of America?' My answer to that was simple: Focus on the children. Their plight is our shame, I told him, and their promise is our future. Reach them and you reach our soul. Bush nodded in agreement. The conversation was rich and deep for more than an hour and a half.
When the discussion officially ended, Bush moved around the room, talking with us individually or in small groups for another hour. I could see that his staff was anxious to whisk him away (cabinet appointments were being made that week and there were key departments yet to fill). Yet he lingered and continued to ask questions. At one point, he turned to me and said, with what I could only read as complete sincerity, 'Jim, I don't understand poor people. I've never lived with poor people or been around poor people much. I don't understand what they think and feel about a lot of things. I'm just a white Republican guy who doesn't get it. How do I get it?'"
Here, in Obama's book, Obama is an ordinary American who has entered a lofty position in Washington, but he has not forgotten the people, not only the people of America, but of Indonesia and Kenya as well.
Obama's style is assertive, with a stunning line or two for each chapter.
Still, I believe Obama isn't spot on. When he speaks of hope, for example, the word opportunity would be more exacting and prospective. While Obama speaks of compromise, it would be appropriate to examine areas of agreement, but work towards independent solutions rather than compromise.
A New Kind of Politics.......2007-09-30
"They are out there, I think to myself, those ordinary citizens who have grown up in the midst of all the political and cultural battles.....They are out there, waiting for Republicans and Democrats to catch up with them".
That statement sets the tone for Senator Obama's refreshingly honest look at policy and politics. In this book, you'll find Obama as open to pointing out flaws in conventional liberal thinking as he is to criticizing his opponents on the right. Likewise, he praises certain aspects of Reagan's policy as openly as he criticizes other parts of it, or as openly as he applauds Bill Clinton's policies. Obama's ability to empathize with a differing point of view, yet maintaining a firm belief in his own position is very endearing.
The most interesting aspect of the book, perhaps, is its ability to see today's issues in a historical context. When examining U.S. foreign policy, Obama first walks the reader through the positions taken by Washington, Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson, Nixon, Reagan and others in trying to preserve America's national interests through interventions abroad. Likewise, when looking at the role of faith in American politics, Obama starts by giving the readers a glimpse of the how America's founding fathers thought about these issues, and how the cultural and social changes in the sixties eventually led the religious right to start playing a more active role in politics.
Obama also talks openly about his family, and his experiences while growing up, that have shaped him as a person. While talking about racial issues, he is comfortable talking about personal experiences that offer him hope. He's equally comfortable talking about his initiation into faith, having been brought up by a mother who wasn't religious.
If you're looking to understand the details of policy that Obama would champion if elected President, this book doesn't offer you a lot. However, what it gives you is the framework of beliefs which shape how Obama thinks about politics and policy. It lives true to its title, and offers hope for a new kind of politics, one that would help us all get closer to the American Dream. All in all, a very enjoyable read, and highly recommended.
Book Description
The candid memoir of one of the most effective, controversial figures in modern politics
Very few people are on the fence about Tom DeLay, who was nicknamed "the Hammer" for his hard-charging, take-no-prisoners style of leadership. Liberals despise him, but for conservatives he's a hero—one of the architects of the 1994 Republican revolution. For twelve years afterward, he was the driving force of the Republican majority in the House of Representatives.
In this eagerly awaited memoir, DeLay will share fascinating stories from his entire career, starting with his early, raucous days in Texas; his personal conversion to Christ and how that changed his personal and political life; his work with other rebels to sow the seeds of the shocking 1994 takeover; and his ascension to the top leadership in the House. He offers a behind-the-scenes view of the most talked-about stories of the past decade, involving George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and many others.
DeLay will also discuss his victories against the odds with the slimmest of margins; his passionate dedication to abused and neglected children; and his battle to fend off a ten-year barrage of malicious and frivolous allegations of wrongdoing, which ultimately led to his decision to resign from Congress.
Perhaps most importantly, DeLay will unveil a blueprint agenda for the country's next group of elected leaders, and show conservatives how to make it a reality.
Customer Reviews:
Slogan Slinging Slop.......2007-09-30
I picked this book up on a whim at my local library. I had read a couple of politically oriented books at that time, one from a moderate republican's perspective and another from a more liberal perspective, so I thought it would be interesting to get insight into the thinking of the modern conservative.
I'm sure there are good intellectual arguments for the core principles of the modern conservative movement (on a surface level I tend to agree with a good number of them), but don't look for them in this book--they aren't there. While Mr. DeLay does list the core principles of the conservative movement from his perspective, he doesn't discuss them on an intellectual level. Instead, he resorts to the type of sloganeering that infects so much of our modern political discourse (convervatives and liberals alike).
Mr. DeLay starts by sharing his experience on a layover in Havana in 1959. He attributes the nasty treatment his family endured as leftist tyranny and asserts that liberalism in the US is just a precursor to the same thing. From there DeLay states what seem to be at the core of his belief system: "There is a God and...there is absolute moral truth" followed by "Human life is not about the state but about God and his unfolding will for every individual."
In the second chapter Mr. DeLay lists his political manifesto. It starts with his religious beliefs followed with some issue-specific agendas (e.g. abortion should be illegal, we should abolish certain government agencies, Congress should be able to overule the Supreme Court, etc). There wasn't any discussion, just a list.
Like many politicians at both extremes, Mr. DeLay's actions in congress at times violated his own principles when the outcome of an issue didn't suit him. For example, on page 5 Mr. DeLay says that state and local governments that are closest to the people have the greatest authority to shape their lives. In the case of Terri Shiavo, however, Mr. DeLay was eager to usurp the authority of the state government when the court upheld, after years and years of appeals, that the feeding tube should be removed from Terri Shiavo. A look at Mr. DeLay's voting record shows many instances of him voting on legislation in ways to contradict his stated core principles. Mr. DeLay seems to be a "the end justifies the means" kind of thinker.
Mr. DeLay makes some self-assessments in his book that I think were pretty accurate. He says that he isn't particularly introspective, he says he isn't an "idea" person, he states that he isn't very articulate, and he indicates he is a slow learner. I found myself agreeing with all of those statements when I finished the book.
The best part of this book was Mr. DeLay's description of how he worked the system to get legislation passed. Unfortunately it wasn't very detailed. I followed up my reading of the book with some wikipedia reading on the subject and got much more useful information.
The rest of the book rarely rises above sloganeering: liberals are evil people who want to take away our freedoms and destroy America. I can't recommend this book to liberals who are interested in understanding the intellectual underpinnings of modern conservative thought, and I can't recommend the book for conservatives either--they've heard the slogans before just like everyone else. I can, however, recommend the book as an example of the way shallow thinking and use selective evidence has distorted our political system. While this book is an example from the Right, there are plenty of examples from the Left too.
In the end, I'm glad I didn't spend money on it, but I'm disappointed I wasted time on it.
Zero Stars is more likely!.......2007-09-23
What a piece of worthless flotsum. Those that would part with the money to read this are probably of the mindset to enjoy it but for the rest it is simplistic, mind-numbing gibberish written by a man adept in pandering to the defective. I picked it up at a local library, curious if he had any insights- he doesn't!
The side of the story you don't hear.......2007-08-27
This book is an interesting read, detailing DeLay's life and accomplishments. Naturally there are those who hate him, but very few seem willing to give him the same benefit of the doubt that Democrats regularly seem to receive. Whether you like him or not, whether you think he is guilty or not, I would at least recommend taking the time to read his side of the story. For those who are really interested in knowing the WHOLE story, this book is for you.
Delay retreated AND surrendered.......2007-08-14
This book from the guy who RESIGNED his office in disgrace, handed his leadership post to the democrats, and ran away from Texas.
No Retreat, No Surrender.......2007-08-11
Tom Delay truly explains how washington works--for better and, unfortunately, for the worst. It's really a shame that going to D.C. seems to ruin even the best people.
Book Description
"Insurgents and terrorists retain the resources and capabilities to sustain and even increase current level of violence through the next year." This was the secret Pentagon assessment sent to the White House in May 2006. The forecast of a more violent 2007 in Iraq contradicted the repeated optimistic statements of President Bush, including one, two days earlier, when he said we were at a "turning point" that history would mark as the time "the forces of terror began their long retreat."
State of Denial examines how the Bush administration avoided telling the truth about Iraq to the public, to Congress, and often to themselves. Two days after the May report, the Pentagon told Congress, in a report required by law, that the "appeal and motivation for continued violent action will begin to wane in early 2007."
In this detailed inside story of a war-torn White House, Bob Woodward reveals how White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, with the indirect support of other high officials, tried for 18 months to get Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld replaced. The president and Vice President Cheney refused. At the beginning of Bush's second term, Stephen Hadley, who replaced Condoleezza Rice as national security adviser, gave the administration a "D minus" on implementing its policies. A SECRET report to the new Secretary of State Rice from her counselor stated that, nearly two years after the invasion, Iraq was a "failed state."
State of Denial reveals that at the urging of Vice President Cheney and Rumsfeld, the most frequent outside visitor and Iraq adviser to President Bush is former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who, haunted still by the loss in Vietnam, emerges as a hidden and potent voice.
Woodward reveals that the secretary of defense himself believes that the system of coordination among departments and agencies is broken, and in a SECRET May 1, 2006, memo, Rumsfeld stated, "the current system of government makes competence next to impossible."
State of Denial answers the core questions: What happened after the invasion of Iraq? Why? How does Bush make decisions and manage a war that he chose to define his presidency? And is there an achievable plan for victory?
Bob Woodward's third book on President Bush is a sweeping narrative -- from the first days George W. Bush thought seriously about running for president through the recruitment of his national security team, the war in Afghanistan, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the struggle for political survival in the second term.
After more than three decades of reporting on national security decision making -- including his two #1 national bestsellers on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush at War (2002) and Plan of Attack (2004) -- Woodward provides the fullest account, and explanation, of the road Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and the White House staff have walked.
Customer Reviews:
Great Information .......2007-10-07
There is a reason our country is such a mess and this book will give you all the true facts
Fascinating but Painful.......2007-09-20
From a political perspective, reading this book is like watching a horrific car wreck happening at slow motion. The man at the wheel happens to be one George W. Bush. I never believed in him, but those that still do should read this tome with an open mind and come to their own conclusions. Woodward's sources and methods are objective and credible, and the only real criticism I have of the book is that it came out far too late to make any difference.
A Great Read!.......2007-09-16
As are all of Woodwards's books this one is well written and informative. I enjoy all his books and I have no problem keeping up with the events and my interest stays peaked. I'm sure you'll enjoy reading this book too. I would have given five stars but I just feel all books are too high priced!
Eye-opening.......2007-09-01
Woodard evokes honestly in all his writings. We can hear the credibilty of his words. Very thought provoking and this should raise many subsequent questions about how one in Washington power uses facts or fails to use people and facts.
getting an inside view of the war on Iraq.......2007-08-12
Bob Woodward's sweeping narrative is an eye opener into the elite world of political and military Washington. He rarely tells information, but lets the players speak for themselves. Reading this book, I often felt like I was in the oval office listening in on a conversation between Bush, Rice and Rumsfeld. The incredible incompetency, inefficiency, and hypocrisy of the adminstration is staggering.
One thing that I wish the book had was a character list. Because there are so many characters coming in and out of each chapter that it's hard to keep track of them. I suggest you keep such a list as you read.
This book really helped me to see why we are in the mess we are in, and I feel like I will be better informed as I read the news these days. (The situation in August 2007, today, seems just as bad if not worse than it was when the book was finished.)
In this book you find out:
The facts about Iraq
- An average of 2500 enemy initiated attacks a month since the war started
- Iraqis were relieved to have Saddam Hussein removed from power, but dismayed and angered by how long it took for basic services such as sewage, electricity, and food supplies to be restored.
- In 2006, at the end of the book, electricity, sewage, and oil pipelines were still mostly disfunctional in Iraq
- President Bush would tally the number of Iraqis killed as a measure of how successful is the war on terror, a number that the Iraqis use to recruit insurgents.
- Sectarian violence increased after the election.
- Death tolls are getting higher and the country becoming more insecure.
About why the administration failed:
- They all believed that it was going to be quick and easy, so there was no plan or funds allocated for an extended exit strategy.
- President Bush was adamant in staying the course, regardly of how the course wasn't working.
- President Bush never asked for alternative opinions or how things were really going, he only wanted to hear and speak of good news.
- Donald Rumsfeld was arrogant and domineering, often blocking the efforts of people around him to fix problems.
- Lots of people saw what was going on and gave advice on how to fix it, but it could never be implemented because of the fighting among the members of the administration, and Bush's policy of not revising their strategy.
- The administration hid the facts about Iraq from the public and often from themselves.
- Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld all held the incredibly callous view that Iraqi casualties are irrelevant, only winning matters
- The administration put into power people who agreed with them and ostracized the ones who were critical. 'If you don't agree with us you are not a team player.'
- The competent people got frustated and some of them gave up trying to fix the problem.
Amazon.com
With its closed chambers and formal language, the Supreme Court tends to deflect drama away from its vastly powerful proceedings. But its mysteries hold plenty of intrigue for anyone with the access to uncover them. In Supreme Conflict, Jan Crawford Greenburg has that access, and then some. With high-placed sourcing that would make Bob Woodward proud, she tells the story of the Court's recent decades and of the often-thwarted attempts by three conservative presidents to remake the Court in their image. Among the revelations are the surprising influence of the most-maligned justice, Clarence Thomas, and the political impact of personal relations among these nine very human colleagues-for-life. Written for everyday readers rather than legal scholars, her account sidesteps theoretical subtleties for a compelling story of the personalities who breathe life into our laws. --Tom Nissley
Crawford graduated from the University of Chicago Law School, and was a legal affairs reporter for the Chicago Tribune and Supreme Court correspondent for PBS's NewsHour before becoming the legal correspondent for ABC News. We had the chance to ask her a few questions about Supreme Conflict:
Questions for Jan Crawford Greenburg
Amazon.com: How hard was it to get the access to justices and clerks that you had for this book? Does the culture of the Court promote that kind of openness about their deliberations?
Jan Crawford Greenburg: Hard! And let me tell you it took some time--they weren't flinging open the doors of their chambers for the first few years I was covering the Court. It takes awhile to build relationships and trust, and I was fortunate enough to do that during the dozen years I've been covering the Supreme Court. As for openness, I think the culture of the Court instead promotes anonymity and privacy. The justices aren't like the people across the street in Congress, or down Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House. They don't hold press conferences or solicit media coverage of their views. They speak through their opinions. I was fortunate that they also chose to speak with me for this important book about the direction of the Supreme Court and its role in our lives.
Amazon.com: Harry Blackmun's notes must be a treasure chest for Court historians. Could you describe what you found there?
Greenburg: A treasure chest is an understatement. Harry Blackmun took extraordinarily detailed notes--almost breathtaking in their scope and level of detail. (He would even write down what lawyers were wearing when they'd appear in Court to argue a case.) He recorded the justices' comments during their private conferences--when they discuss cases--and he took down their votes. And he kept all the key memos and letters that the justices would send back and forth when they were discussing a case. It was a tremendous window into the Court's inner sanctum, during some of the most pivotal years for the institution.
Amazon.com: One of the biggest revelations of your book is your characterization of Clarence Thomas as far more influential, even in his first year on the Court, than he's usually given credit for. Could you describe what his role on the Court has been?
Greenburg: Clarence Thomas has been the most maligned justice in modern history--and also the most misunderstood and mischaracterized. I found conclusive evidence that far from being Antonin Scalia's intellectual understudy, Thomas has had a substantial role in shaping the direction of the Court--from his very first week on the bench. The early storyline on Thomas was that he was just following Scalia's direction, or as one columnist at the time wrote, "Thomas Walks in Scalia's Shoes." That is patently false, as the documents and notes in the Blackmun papers unquestionably show. If any justice was changing his vote to join the other that first year, it was Scalia joining Thomas, not the other way around. But his clear and forceful views affected the Court in unexpected ways. Although he shored up conservative positions, his opinions also caused moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to back away and join the justices on the Left.
Amazon.com: Not every Supreme Court confirmation is a battle, even when the Senate and the President are from different parties. What separates the candidates who sail through from the ones who get put through the wringer?
Greenburg: The recent appointment of Samuel Alito shows a justice with a clearly conservative record can get confirmed--and even pick up some votes from Democrats. Maybe the secret is developing a reputation as a fair and nonpartisan judge on a federal appeals court. At his hearings, liberal and conservative judges who had worked with him on the appeals court testified in his behalf, as did his law clerks--some of whom were self-identified liberals. Alito was the conservative counterpart to Clinton nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She had been an outspoken advocate for liberal causes (including the ACLU), but she'd developed a reputation as a fair and thoughtful judge on the federal appeals court, garnering respect from both sides.
Amazon.com: How much do Americans know about how their federal courts work? What should they know?
Greenburg: Most Americans, understandably, think about trials and drama when the issue of the courts is raised. But the appeals courts--and the Supreme Court--remain mysterious, even though those courts have an enormous impact on American life. The judiciary is one of the three branches of government, but its decisions take on outsized importance at times. It can provide a vital check against abuse of individual rights by government--but it also can usurp the role of the people when it reaches out and takes on issues that more appropriately belong in the purview of the other branches.
Amazon.com: Even though you show how our expectations for where new members will take the Court are so often wrong, I'll ask you anyway: What do you expect in the next few years from the Roberts Court?
Greenburg: To be more conservative than the one led by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. John Roberts himself is a solid judicial conservative who believes the Court has too often taken on issues that belong in the realm of elected legislatures. He is advocating a more restrained approach, with greater consensus among the justices. In addition, Justice Alito replaced key swing-voter Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court's first female justice. O'Connor's vote often carried the day on the closely divided Court--and she typically sided with liberals on social issues like abortion, affirmative action, and religion. Alito is more conservative, and I expect to see the Court turn to the right on those and other issues.
Book Description
Drawing on unprecedented access to the Supreme Court justices and their inner circles, acclaimed ABC News legal correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg offers an explosive, newsbreaking account of one of the most momentous political watersheds in recent American history.
Over the past decade, the central front of America's bitter culture wars has been the titanic battle over the composition and direction of the United States Supreme Court. During that period, no journalist has been closer to the action on the ground-the ideas, the politics, the personalities, the gamesmanship-than ABC News correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg. Now, in Supreme Conflict, Greenburg draws on all of her formidable reportorial resources to give a brilliant, vivid, astonishingly unvarnished account of the struggle for the soul of the highest court in the land.
Greenburg picks up the plot with the Rehnquist Court, which, despite having seven Republican nominees, proved deeply disappointing to conservatives hoping to reverse decades of progressive rulings on key social issues. She reveals for the first time the real story behind a series of failed Republican nominations that enraged the American conservative movement and left it seething with frustration and resolve not to squander future opportunities. Enter: George W. Bush and the setting of the stage for a full-blown conservative counterrevolution. Supreme Conflict contains entirely fresh perspectives across the entire sweep of its story, from the conservative movement's early fumbles with the nominations of justices Anthony Kennedy and David Souter to its crowning successes with the appointments of justices Roberts and Alito. The book breaks news in its revelations about the effect of Chief Justice Rehnquist's illness on the process; on the truth behind Harriet Miers's disastrous nomination and how it was really scuttled; and on how decades of bruising battles led to the triumph of the conservative agenda with the appointment of two of its leading judicial exponents. Through the entire dramatic story, rich in character and conflict, Greenburg never loses sight of the gargantuan stakes in this struggle, the opposing ideological agendas at play.
The story Jan Crawford Greenburg tells is that of the fulcrum event of our time, the massive coordinated campaign to move the Supreme Court in a very different direction, to a more limited and restrictive role in American government. A masterpiece of old-fashioned gumshoe reportage, rich storytelling, and penetrating analysis, Supreme Conflict will be the definitive account of the most consequential shift in the use of American judicial power in almost one hundred years.
Customer Reviews:
A terrible disappointment..........2007-10-08
I thought, considering the book's title and that this reporter touted her access to nine justices, that this would detail the inner dynamics and interpersonal relationships of the justices and their clerks, like The Brethren. Instead, it was a laborious and too-detailed factual account of process the Executive and Legislative Branches used to select this court.
I see strong bias on the part of the author, who as a reporter, hopes to keep "inside access." She veritably fawns over Alito, in an effort to ingratiate herself with him and his family while, in contrast, she trashes the reclusive Souter, and the presumably uncooperative Kennedy.
Only 20% of this book was worthwhile reading.
In A Class By Itself.......2007-09-30
In all respects -- writing, research, organization, balance -- this is the best book on the Supreme Court. To be sure, there'll be other (and perhaps better) books written on this always fascinating institution. For now, however, it positively towers over its competition. I've read (and enjoyed) them all -- Woodward/Armstrong's, Toobin's, Rosen's -- but Jan Crawford Greenburg's "Supreme Conflict" is, to reiterate my title, in a class by itself.
Highly recommended.
Decent book for non-lawyers.......2007-09-27
Most legal reporting in the mainstream media stinks. Either non-lawyers miss the point of cases, or lawyers fail to translate that point to a level where the average person can understand. "Supreme Conflict" is an exception. This book focuses more on the personalities and dynamics of the justices, and on the nomination and selection process, than on particular cases. The tales of how certain people are selected for the Court, and how they mesh with the other justices once they have arrived, are interesting glimpses into a world rarely seen by outsiders. Some reviewers point out, rightly, that "Supreme Conflict" does not hash out particular cases in detail. But that's not the kind of book this is.
Other reviewers contend "Supreme Conflict" is too sympathetic to the right. That leaves me scratching my head, given the account of how Bush Jr. picked Harriet Miers as a nominee. True to form, Bush Jr. got some kind of gut feeling and couldn't be talked out of it by reason, and you see what that got him. We also see the mechanism of how the great right-wing spin machine is deployed for, or against, particular nominees. None of this is particularly flattering for Republicans.
This is a good companion to "The Brethren," by Bob Woodward, a similarly-good popular level book about the Supreme Court of an earlier era. Most libraries will have this book, and it is worth checking out if you're interested in the Supreme Court but not so interested as to add "Supreme Conflict" to your permanent collection.
Fascinating.......2007-09-06
Do not start reading this book if you have to go to work or to school the next day. I read it in two evenings because it was so interesting.
Greenburg is to be congratulated for getting interviews with so many of the judges and for doing so much research and confirmation. The interest builds, and the final chapters on the Roberts, Miers, and Alito nominations are riveting, even though we know the final outcome. But what we didn't know is all the behind the scenes work.
I think Greenburg was fair to the justices and to those in the White House involved in the nomination process. She tells what they did well and what they did poorly. And some of the mistakes were monumental (Bush believing Sununu when he said that Souter was a conservative, for instance). Just from reading the book, it would be difficult to guess Greenburg's own political leanings.
Many things are surprising in this book. Justice O'Connor did not really know much about constitutional law when nominated. Clarence Thomas influenced Scalia's vote more than vice-versa during the first term. And liberal Democrats, more than anyone else, are responsible for Roberts and especially Alito, two conservative white males, being on the court.
Valuable Insights but Lacking on the So-Called "Liberals".......2007-08-09
I don't know who Greenburg's sources are, but this is a highly readable "behind the scenes" account of the political maneuvers that have influenced the selection of U.S. Supreme Court Justices from Reagan's appointees through the present. Her insights on Kennedy's jurisprudence and on O'Connor's, Roberts's, and Alito's confirmation hearings are particularly illuminating.
Greenburg is on less stable ground when it comes to the so-called "liberals." Only one chapter is devoted to Clinton's appointees, Ginsburg and Breyer, even though their selection can be seen as relative triumphs for the liberal to moderate vote that rejects the kind of judicial activism that radical conservatives like Scalia and Thomas uphold (and which Roberts and Alito tacitly support, unfortunately).
Greenburg also constantly reminds us that George H.W. Bush's appointment of David Souter is seen by many conservatives as one of the "biggest political blunders" by a Republican president in the twentieth century. While that may be true, among conservatives, I would have liked Greenburg to analyze Souter's appointment and subsequent rulings more even-handedly. Souter, in fact, is a traditional New England Republican who doesn't believe in legislating religious and moral issues from the bench. In my estimation, it's not that Souter is or became "liberal" but rather that the Court has become, under Rehnquist and now under Roberts, especially conservative, even radically so.
Still, Greenburg's book is a great survey of recent Supreme Court history and necessary reading for anyone who continues to deny the influence of politics on the shaping of law in this country.
Book Description
The definitive and rollicking story of one of the best, and one of the wackiest, teams of all time, during one of the most vital eras in baseball.
With The Gashouse Gang, John Heidenry delivers the definitive account of one the greatest and most colorful baseball teams of all times, the 1934 St. Louis Cardinals, filled with larger-than-life baseball personalities like Branch Rickey, Leo Durocher, Pepper Martin, Casey Stengel, Satchel Paige, Frankie Frisch, and--especially--the eccentric good ol' boy and great pitcher Dizzy Dean and his brother Paul.
The year 1934 marked the lowest point of the Great Depression, when the U.S. went off the gold standard, banks collapsed by the score, and millions of Americans were out of work. Epic baseball feats offered welcome relief from the hardships of daily life. The Gashouse Gang, the brilliant culmination of a dream by its general manager, Branch Rickey, the first to envision a farm system that would acquire and "educate" young players in the art of baseball, was adored by the nation, who saw itself--scruffy, proud, and unbeatable--in the Gang.
Based on original research and told in entertaining narrative style, The Gashouse Gang brings a bygone era and a cast full of vivid personalities to life and unearths a treasure trove of baseball lore that will delight any fan of the great American pastime.
Customer Reviews:
Baseball lover's only!.......2007-09-23
Baseball in times long passed was a very different game, but like today there were some really wild characters to mke the game all the more interesting. The 1934 Cardinals, "The Gashouse Gang" were an exciting, odd collection of great ball payers who played for the love of the game in a way we wish today's players did.
If you love baseball you won't be able to put this down, and even if you don't it will be too intriquing to stop reading once you start. Well written, well researched and as entertaining as anything I've read this season. Highly reccommended!
The Gashouse Gang Personalities.......2007-09-15
This book climbs to the top wrung of my baseball ladder. Rather than a statistical or play-by-play book so common in baseball pages, this features personality development of some of the wackiest players of all time. Learn that Ducky Joe should have been Mean Joe, that Leo the Lip couldn't handle relationships, or that Dizzy Dean was really Jerome or Jay or Hanna or Herman, maybe that he was from Arkansas or Oklahoma or Texas -- well, you get it.
This book captures the thrill of a season and the joy of a team effort. It really makes you think of the Oakland Athletics of the Catfish days.
Just one observation: John Heidenry missed the point of the moniker, "Gashouse Gang." He can't figure out where it came from. He even ponders how "Gas Tank" became "Gashouse." During that day, electricity was provided by manufactured gas plants, sometimes called "witch's brew." The main structure was known as the "gashouse." The working class fellows who toiled away in those dirty gashouses were known as "the gashouse gangs." They cursed, they played dirty and hilarious tricks on each other, they had great and sour dispositions -- necessary to get through the tough days, and yes, their clothes were always filthy. Sound like the beloved Gashouse Gang?
Snag this book, and you will enjoy several hours of quiet time, if you can block out your own laughter.
Me 'n' Paul.......2007-09-02
In baseball, 1934 was a year to remember, a year in which the Saint Louis Cardinals, a scruffy team of misfits and malcontents, came from almost the graveyard to win the National League pennant, and then the World Series. While we learn a tremendous amount about the Cardinals, and especially the Dean brothers, Dizzy and Paul, there are others about whom we receive thumbnail biographies. Most importantly, Branch Rickey is focused upon for much of the early part of the book, and just reading about this remarkable man is sufficient reason to study this book. Other famous players make cameo appearances: Babe Ruth, Mel Otto, Mickey Cochrane, Leo Durocher, and Pie Traynor, with whom I was once priviledged to have an extensive conversation about baseball when I was in college. I also remember listening to Dizzy on the television announcing(?) games and talking about all kinds of extraneous subjects other than the game he was supposed to be calling. Of course, Dizzy is the centerpiece of this book, and he strides through it like a colossus. He did things then that would not be tolerated by a basseball organization today, and perhaps we are the pooorer for not having men such as him (and Curt Flood)to challenge what is considered the "right" way to act as a porfessional ball player. He's gone, and so are all of those famous old-timers, and the world misses them!
Great Father's Day gift.......2007-07-12
I gave this book to my 60 year old father for Father's Day. He hasn't read a book in years but is a huge baseball fan. He loved the book and stayed up late into the night reading it. Great for a Cardinals or baseball fan!
RICK SHAQ GOLDSTEIN SAYS: "73 YEARS AFTER WINNING THE WORLD SERIES "THE GASHOUSE GANG" ST LOUIS CARDINALS HAVE A BOOK!".......2007-06-13
Before I give you the details of this book, let me save some people their valuable time, by telling you who this book would appeal to! Old School Baseball fanatics, "Baseball Historians", Saint Louis Cardinal fans. If you think the designated hitter rule is good for baseball this book isn't for you.
73 years after the famous (To the above listed people.) Saint Louis Cardinals, hereafter known as "The Gashouse Gang", won the World Series, they have had an excellent book released on their exploits and accomplishments. As a self-acclaimed baseball fanatic, some of the statistics, and idiosyncrasies, I discovered in this book about famous old time players that I already knew about, were both interesting and amusing. The author's writing style is not anything you'll remember as out of the ordinary, since so much of the meat of the book, you can tell is repeated from old newspaper articles. But the detailed, meticulous, research should be applauded. As I've mentioned in my earlier reviews, I've read literally hundreds of baseball books, and memorized half the "Encyclopedia Of Baseball" when I was 10 years old, yet I learned even more details and amusing personality "quirks" of some of the old-time stars. I of course already knew that Dizzy Dean was a great pitcher, in the Hall Of Fame, and the last National League pitcher to win 30 games. What I didn't know, but learned here, was the absolute bottom of the barrel poverty he came from in the historically famous "dust bowl"! I knew he was a "wacky" character, but I didn't know, it went to the extent of him literally being the Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali, of the baseball world in the 1930's, before there was an Ali. I didn't know that Dizzy held out and boycotted games, in a demand for an increased contract, in the middle of the season. I also got to learn much more about the great Ducky Medwick, (The last National League Player to win the Triple Crown 70 years ago.) who was one of my dear departed Mother's favorite players, when he later played on the Brooklyn Dodgers. I never knew he was such a New Jersey, street fighting, chip on the shoulder, ready to fight anyone, including his own teammates, type of guy! I learned more than I ever had known about what led up to one of the biggest name trades in baseball history, Rogers Hornsby for Frankie Frisch. The detailed background on Branch Rickey, before his famous relationship with Jackie Robinson, was also expertly detailed. The almost blow by blow reporting on the 1934 World Series between the Gashouse Gang and the star studded Detroit Tigers makes you feel like you were there. I could go on and on, but like I said in my opening sentences, these facts, that are exciting and educational to me, would only be exciting to the type of people I described in my opening.
Book Description
Filled with headline-making revelations, this explosive account by two award-winning investigative reporters tracks the behind-the-scenes story of the forged intelligence document that the Bush administration used to push the nation into war with Iraq
Like Barbara Tuchman’s 1958 classic, The Zimmerman Telegram, about the decoded German wire that drew the United States into World War I, or the recent bestseller Cobra II, The Italian Letter traces the road to war by following the scandal surrounding the Italian Letter, a fraudulent intelligence document that cooked up proof that the African country of Niger was prepared to supply Saddam Hussein with uranium for nuclear weapons.
What is the real story that led to President Bush’s 16 famous words in his 2003 State of the Union address, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."? In the first book to uncover the details of the scandal that has already led to the indictment of one administration official—a scandal bigger than the Iran-Contra affair—the authors have drawn on their unique access to a large group of CIA, FBI, and international sources as well as whistle-blowers.
As frustration over the increasing deaths in Iraq continues to mount, this timely, page-turning narrative provides fresh insights for a nation hungry for greater understanding of the Iraq War and the manipulated intelligence document that altered the course of contemporary history.
Customer Reviews:
In the lives of the American people it was the end of Innocence.......2007-08-31
1. The Italian letter indirectly supplied by Laura Montini to Rocco Martino and introduced to Elisabetta Burba was not concretely proven. Montini, an employee at Nigerian embassy, in Rome produced the excerpt from the Italian letter: "The government of the republic of Niger and The Govrnment of Iraq by their respective official delegated representatives. Said provision equaling 500 tons of pure uranium per year will be delivered in 2 phases."
2. Michael Ledeen, fellow of the American Enterprise Institute was thought to have had a hand in the Italian letter development from forgery to intelligence because his ties with Italian intelligence services. Ledeen alleged Iranian intelligence agents, and noted Iranian Intelligence fabricator, Manucher Ghorbanifar. AEI fellows include Cheney, Shultz, Kirkpatrick, and Ledeen.
3. Burba was convinced that Niger did not have the capability of shipping yellowcake to Iraq, secretly or openly. Yellowcake was store in 880 barrel filled half way, to control weight and safety. Burba estimated to ship the barrels would have required a 100 truck convey and tractor trailers were rarely seen in West Africa. Each truck would have to travel hundreds of miles from the mining sites in Niger to Cotonou, a major port city in neighboring Benin, where the uranium would be loaded on ships. The risk to sell uranium to Iraq would have been disasterous to Niger, if discovered, because the country receives financial aid from the US and Europe. It wouldn't make sense to make the deal.
4. Burba left copies of the Italian letter with US intelligence and inspired the Bush 16 words scenario. The intelligence community was stunned by the statement not knowing where the statement came from or the source of the information. The policy office was out of the loop and was unaware of a rogue operation in the African country. The intelligence community case was the Iraq was rearming with chemical and biological weapons and when the State department discounted the Niger claim, the director of WINPAC said it was possible. The difference of opinion had more to do with politics than analysis of intelligence.
5. Wolfowitz as his from Christopher DeMuth, president of the American Enterprise Institute, to put together a small team of scholars to assess the dynamics inside the Middle East that had produced the Sep 11 hijackers. The twelve man team concluded that Saadam Hussein had to be removed from power to transform the region into a stable and less threaten part of the world. Neoconservatives were also attracted to the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs with the advisory board consisting of Kirkpatrick, Ledeen, Perle, and Woolsey and Feith as chairman.
6. Wolfowitz hope that Ahmad Chalabi would preside over Iraq after the US invasion. Chalabi received $30 million by the Defense Department in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, payment inpart for providing intelligence, most turned out to be worthless. Chalabi "attempted to influence United States policy on Iraq by providing false information through defectors directed at convincing the United States that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and had links to terrorist." In Oct 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency cautioned that the Iraq National Congress was pentrated by Iranian hostile intelligence services and would use the relationship to promote its agenda. A similar warning came from the CIA. Chalabi introduced Mohammed Harith, to the Pentagon and the DIA found much of the WMD reporting questionable and his descriptions of alleged nuclear facilities demonstrably incorrect.
7. Under the approval of Rumsfeld, Feith and Wolfowitz create a supersecret team called Team B. Team B provided Cheney and Rumsfeld the evidence that Saadam had created an unholy alliance with Osama Bin Laden. The CIA never said such a thing and did not believe it was true. Team B told Cheney, "Mohammed Atta had met with an Iraqi intelligence officer several months before 9/11 attacks" and Cheney repeated it to the public. As a result 70 percent of Americans polled said Hussein had something to do with the toppling of the Twin Towers.
8. The Office of Special Plans for the new Iraq initiative was a secret matter. The Joint Chief of Staff was not in the loop. Chalabi was a frequent visitor to the NESA and Special Plans office and often broth along Iraqi defectors. DIA reported the information Chalabi and his defectors provided was virtually worthless. "Chalabi stock fell after the invasion, when new accounts dislosed that his intelligence chief was a long time senior officer in Iran's espionage service. US authorities, meanwhile, investigated Chalabi for allegedly passing secrets to Iran.
A Thorough Examination.......2007-07-03
At the core of the disaster of the Bush presidency lies a fabricated "intelligence" document used to justify pre-emptive military invasion.
You wouldn't know it by watching the mainstream press.
This book fills an important role, similar to the 9/11 commission report or the Iraq Study Group. It fills in many of the details necessary to understand how and why such a colossal and embarrassing "intelligence failure" could find it's way into the most important State of the Union address in decades.
It doesn't answer every question, but it answers enough to make it a very worthwhile read, and it does so with just the right touch of humor and lighter prose.
Faked out?.......2007-07-03
Blow by blow account of how to construct a lie and get it delivered to the public by a president. Very well written account of the infamous `sixteen words' in Bush's 2003 state of the union address. This is the way the Mafia would use our intelligence agencies.
It also includes a quick reference time line of events for those amount us who do not posses great faculties of memory.
Fairly thin on the purported topic.......2007-06-14
I have read most of the books on how and why the US went into Iraq and how badly we botched it up once we got there. I found this book interesting and there was some valuable new information, but I came away knowing little about the Italian letter I hadn't already read elsewhere. The central question of who wrote it and why went unanswered, beyond the belief that it originated within SISMI. It's an interesting book if you don't know the story, but unsatisfying if you do and desire to know more.
Whoa...........2007-06-06
This book really opens your eyes to what exactly this administration has done to push the war in Iraq. It is very indepth and very accurate. While I was reading this book, at times, I would forget that I am reading about something that is going on right at this moment because the crap they have pulled sounded like something in a movie. It's frightening that this is real. I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to know what the hell is going on.
Average customer rating:
- team of rivals
- Firsst Rate
- When Minor Characters Get Leading Roles
- For the love of history
- Doesn't live up to its title
|
Team of Rivals
Doris Kearns Goodwin
Manufacturer: Simon & Schuster
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
 Political
| Leaders & Notable People
| Biographies & Memoirs
| Subjects
| Books
Presidents & Heads of State
| Leaders & Notable People
| Biographies & Memoirs
| Subjects
| Books
General
| United States
| Historical
| Biographies & Memoirs
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Civil War
| United States
| Historical
| Biographies & Memoirs
| Subjects
| Books
General
| United States
| Americas
| History
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Civil War
| United States
| Americas
| History
| Subjects
| Books
Political History
| United States
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Executive Branch
| United States
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Similar Items:
-
1776
-
The Year of Magical Thinking
-
No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II
-
Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community, and War
-
The March: A Novel
ASIN: 0684824906
Release Date: 2005-10-25 |
Amazon.com
The life and times of Abraham Lincoln have been analyzed and dissected in countless books. Do we need another Lincoln biography? In Team of Rivals, esteemed historian Doris Kearns Goodwin proves that we do. Though she can't help but cover some familiar territory, her perspective is focused enough to offer fresh insights into Lincoln's leadership style and his deep understanding of human behavior and motivation. Goodwin makes the case for Lincoln's political genius by examining his relationships with three men he selected for his cabinet, all of whom were opponents for the Republican nomination in 1860: William H. Seward, Salmon P. Chase, and Edward Bates. These men, all accomplished, nationally known, and presidential, originally disdained Lincoln for his backwoods upbringing and lack of experience, and were shocked and humiliated at losing to this relatively obscure Illinois lawyer. Yet Lincoln not only convinced them to join his administration--Seward as secretary of state, Chase as secretary of the treasury, and Bates as attorney general--he ultimately gained their admiration and respect as well. How he soothed egos, turned rivals into allies, and dealt with many challenges to his leadership, all for the sake of the greater good, is largely what Goodwin's fine book is about. Had he not possessed the wisdom and confidence to select and work with the best people, she argues, he could not have led the nation through one of its darkest periods.
Ten years in the making, this engaging work reveals why "Lincoln's road to success was longer, more tortuous, and far less likely" than the other men, and why, when opportunity beckoned, Lincoln was "the best prepared to answer the call." This multiple biography further provides valuable background and insights into the contributions and talents of Seward, Chase, and Bates. Lincoln may have been "the indispensable ingredient of the Civil War," but these three men were invaluable to Lincoln and they played key roles in keeping the nation intact. --Shawn Carkonen
The Team of Rivals
| Team of Rivals doesn't just tell the story of Abraham Lincoln. It is a multiple biography of the entire team of personal and political competitors that he put together to lead the country through its greatest crisis. Here, Doris Kearns Goodwin profiles five of the key players in her book, four of whom contended for the 1860 Republican presidential nomination and all of whom later worked together in Lincoln's cabinet. |
 |
1. Edwin M. Stanton
Stanton treated Lincoln with utter contempt at their initial acquaintance when the two men were involved in a celebrated law case in the summer of 1855. Unimaginable as it might seem after Stanton's demeaning behavior, Lincoln offered him "the most powerful civilian post within his gift"--the post of secretary of war--at their next encounter six years later. On his first day in office as Simon Cameron's replacement, the energetic, hardworking Stanton instituted "an entirely new regime" in the War Department. After nearly a year of disappointment with Cameron, Lincoln had found in Stanton the leader the War Department desperately needed. Lincoln's choice of Stanton revealed his singular ability to transcend personal vendetta, humiliation, or bitterness. As for Stanton, despite his initial contempt for the man he once described as a "long armed Ape," he not only accepted the offer but came to respect and love Lincoln more than any person outside of his immediate family. He was beside himself with grief for weeks after the president's death.
2. Salmon P. Chase
Chase, an Ohioan, had been both senator and governor, had played a central role in the formation of the national Republican Party, and had shown an unflagging commitment to the cause of the black man. No individual felt he deserved the presidency as a natural result of his past contributions more than Chase himself, but he refused to engage in the practical methods by which nominations are won. He had virtually no campaign and he failed to conciliate his many enemies in Ohio itself. As a result, he alone among the candidates came to the convention without the united support of his own state. Chase never ceased to underestimate Lincoln, nor to resent the fact that he had lost the presidency to a man he considered his inferior. His frustration with his position as secretary of the treasury was alleviated only by his his dogged hope that he, rather than Lincoln, would be the Republican nominee in 1864, and he steadfastly worked to that end. The president put up with Chase's machinations and haughty yet fundamentally insecure nature because he recognized his superlative accomplishments at treasury. Eventually, however, Chase threatened to split the Republican Party by continuing to fill key positions with partisans who supported his presidential hopes. When Lincoln stepped in, Chase tendered his resignation as he had three times before, but this time Lincoln stunned Chase by calling his bluff and accepting the offer.
3. Abraham Lincoln
When Lincoln won the Republican presidential nomination in 1860 he seemed to have come from nowhere--a backwoods lawyer who had served one undistinguished term in the House of Representatives and lost two consecutive contests for the U.S. Senate. Contemporaries attributed his surprising nomination to chance, to his moderate position on slavery, and to the fact that he hailed from the battleground state of Illinois. But Lincoln's triumph, particularly when viewed against the efforts of his rivals, owed much to a remarkable, unsuspected political acuity and an emotional strength forged in the crucible of hardship and defeat. That Lincoln, after winning the presidency, made the unprecedented decision to incorporate his eminent rivals into his political family, the cabinet, was evidence of an uncanny self-confidence and an indication of what would prove to others a most unexpected greatness.
4. William H. Seward
A celebrated senator from New York for more than a decade and governor of his state for two terms before going to Washington, Seward was certain he was going to receive his party's nomination for president in 1860. The weekend before the convention in Chicago opened he had already composed a first draft of the valedictory speech he expected to make to the Senate, assuming that he would resign his position as soon as the decision in Chicago was made. His mortification at not having received the nomination never fully abated, and when he was offered his cabinet post as secretary of state he intended to have a major role in choosing the remaining cabinet members, conferring upon himself a position in the new government more commanding than that of Lincoln himself. He quickly realized the futility of his plan to relegate the president to a figurehead role. Though the feisty New Yorker would continue to debate numerous issues with Lincoln in the years ahead, exactly as Lincoln had hoped and needed him to do, Seward would become his closest friend, advisor, and ally in the administration. More than any other cabinet member Seward appreciated Lincoln's peerless skill in balancing factions both within his administration and in the country at large.
5. Edward Bates
A widely respected elder statesman, a delegate to the convention that framed the Missouri Constitution, and a former Missouri congressman whose opinions on national matters were still widely sought, Bates's ambitions for political success were gradually displaced by love for his wife and large family, and he withdrew from public life in the late 1840s. For the next 20 years he was asked repeatedly to run or once again accept high government posts but he consistently declined. However in early 1860, with letters and newspaper editorials advocating his candidacy crowding in upon him, he decided to try for the highest office in the land. After losing to Lincoln he vowed, in his diary, to decline a cabinet position if one were to be offered, but with the country "in trouble and danger" he felt it was his duty to accept when Lincoln asked him to be attorney general. Though Bates initially viewed Lincoln as a well-meaning but incompetent administrator, he eventually concluded that the president was an unmatched leader, "very near being a 'perfect man.'" |
The Essential Doris Kearns Goodwin
Wait Till Next Year: A Memoir |
No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II |
Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream |
More New Reading on the Civil War
Lincoln's Melancholy: How Depression Challenged a President and Fueled His Greatness by Joshua Wolf Shenk |
Grant and Sherman: The Friendship That Won the Civil War by Charles Bracelen Flood |
The March: A Novel by E.L. Doctorow |
Book Description
Acclaimed historian Doris Kearns Goodwin illuminates Lincoln's political genius in this highly original work, as the one-term congressman and prairie lawyer rises from obscurity to prevail over three gifted rivals of national reputation to become president.
On May 18, 1860, William H. Seward, Salmon P. Chase, Edward Bates, and Abraham Lincoln waited in their hometowns for the results from the Republican National Convention in Chicago. When Lincoln emerged as the victor, his rivals were dismayed and angry.
Throughout the turbulent 1850s, each had energetically sought the presidency as the conflict over slavery was leading inexorably to secession and civil war. That Lincoln succeeded, Goodwin demonstrates, was the result of a character that had been forged by experiences that raised him above his more privileged and accomplished rivals. He won because he possessed an extraordinary ability to put himself in the place of other men, to experience what they were feeling, to understand their motives and desires.
It was this capacity that enabled Lincoln as president to bring his disgruntled opponents together, create the most unusual cabinet in history, and marshal their talents to the task of preserving the Union and winning the war.
We view the long, horrifying struggle from the vantage of the White House as Lincoln copes with incompetent generals, hostile congressmen, and his raucous cabinet. He overcomes these obstacles by winning the respect of his former competitors, and in the case of Seward, finds a loyal and crucial friend to see him through.
This brilliant multiple biography is centered on Lincoln's mastery of men and how it shaped the most significant presidency in the nation's history.
Customer Reviews:
team of rivals.......2007-10-05
great look at the inner workings of the executive branch This cabinet was hardly a "team". In comparison to the way cabinets members are selelected in our era of political, Lincoln showed incredible political courage to select this group.
Firsst Rate.......2007-09-25
Well written, captivating. Brings to life Lincoln's great intellect and personality. Facinating detailed character development of Lincoln's rivals and his attempts to heal and unify.
When Minor Characters Get Leading Roles.......2007-09-18
The Civil War is America's great epic story and Abraham Lincoln is our great national hero. It is a beautiful story almost perfect in its every detail. Consequently, it has been told many times in the one hundred and forty two years since its conclusion. Doris Kearns Goodwin needed to find a new angle in order to write her Lincoln biography. Her take was to write a group of biography of Lincoln and the men who formed his War Cabinet.
For her approach to work, relatively minor characters must be elevated to leading roles. The Civil War is such a compelling story with so many memorable characters. While reading this book, I had to wonder why Kearns Goodwin devoted so many pages to Edward Bates' early legal career or Kate Chase's social life. The pages she devotes to them, takes away from more important characters and events.
This is a very long book and it takes some measure of fortitude to finish it. Although, I had to wonder about Kearns Goodwin's focus on these relatively minor characters, I stuck with the book because she is such a strong writer. You would have to be a very hard person not to tear up while reading her description of Lincoln's last day. In the final analysis, Doris Kearns Goodwin is up to the task of re-telling our great national story. Recommended.
For the love of history.......2007-08-29
I loved this book. Doris Kearns Goodwin is an excellent writer, she did 10 years of research before writing this book. She makes you feel as if you are there. You find out what a brilliant man Lincoln was and how he surrounded himself with men who were not always his strongest supporters. I did not want it to end.
Doesn't live up to its title.......2007-08-24
The book is very well written and the writer is--of course--extremely reliable. My only complaint is that it's not what it claims to be. I was expecting an in-depth report on how Lincoln molded this group of men into a real team--sort of a "Lincoln on Leadership," for the 21st century. I was hoping for all kinds of insights and practical, homespun wisdom. But instead it was simply a history of his administration. So in spite of how well written and thoroughly researched it was, I was disappointed.
At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA
The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives
Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power
Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone (Vintage)
Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present
