Reviews (10)

A Compelling Book by an American Hero
This is a fine book--I just reread it now that there has been some time to give the run-up to Iraq some perspective.Ritter articulately makes the case that Iraq had long ago lost its ability to manufacture WMD's, and details his efforts to stop Bush's illegal war of aggression.This he does in a compelling, readable style, and potentially tedious technical information is handled in a clear, understandable way.

Certainly, the lack of WMD's found in Iraq has proven Ritter entirely correct in virtally all of his assertions, and he has been utterly vindicated.The sad, ignorant war-supporters who ignored him--or worse, questioned his patriotism--have been exposed as un-American idiots who understood nothing of WMD's.If America had done a better job of listening to Mr. Ritter, our young people would not have died in vain, and we would not be stuck in a quagmire today. Scott Ritter is an American hero.

More Detail Needed
I have read two other books by this author and a number of other articles and have enjoyed them.I have always liked his sharply focused line of attack.He does not deviate from his message. I have also seen him on TV and for the most part he holds his own. Therefore, I was excited to read this book. What I figured I was going to get was a break down of what Bush jr. and company said to get the country to go to war and then the outcome at least in regard to Ritter's area of expertise, WMD's. To my surprise and disappointment this area of the book only covered maybe 50% and it was really not that well documented.I wanted a blow-by-blow account, really getting into the details of each misstatement and speech.I wanted almost a well-detailed time line of events I could use in endless arguments with people who supported the war.

The rest of the book was a number of rather lightly detailed attack lines aimed at Bush.Don't get me wrong, I am all for giving Bush jr. a well deserved hard time, but I want some meat on the bones.Pointless or unsubstantiated attacks do nothing but provide critics ammunition to discount the authors other well thought out comments. Overall I would say the book was ok, the author sticks to his usual writing style, some would say no style, but overall the book is average.

Excellent book - Ritter understands what defines patriotism
Despite the attempts at assasinate his character during 2003-2003, Scott Ritter has been proven correct about Iraq and its lack of WMD.He is correct that we the citizens and the Congress are culpable for beleiving the Big Lie. Right-wingers will certainly try to disparage this book, but in today's climate loyalty to political party seems to take precedence over loyalty to country and to the U.S. Constitution.IMO, Scott Ritter is trying to stand up for the enlightend ideas and principles that founded our nation, and his book was a refreshing read of what has gone wrong, and what we need to do to fix things in 2004. Regime change at home, no more Big Lies.

Not only does Ritter painfully point out that the details showing that the Iraq invasion was a war of aggression, and as such illegal under International Law, but he successfully articulates that the US under this administration is looking very much like the earlier periods of fascism in Germany and Italy (mid-late 1930s).As an American I find these parallels repugnant, but an objective analysis of the facts suggest we are in fact following in those same footsteps.

Indeed, the neoconservative quest for "global dominance" will never happen, and may ultimately lead to economic failure of the US. The founding fathers were absolutely adamant that the US reject the temptation of Empire - as the histories of Empires all end the same way:Military overextension and subsequent economic decline.It's time to revisit the real meaning of the Constitution, the wisdom of the founding fathers, and the ideas and principles that founded our great nation.

As Ritter points out, simply waving the American flag and loving America is not enough - democracy requires active participation of the citizenry. Regrettably, Ritter is right 'America is going through a crisis of gigantic proportions.It is a struggle for the ideological soul of the nation. Bush and his posse have set a course for the future that dramatically departs, in words and in action, from the values and ideals set forth by our nation's founders." (page 201)

FYI to the media: During WWI, Teddy Roosevelt - a true conservative, and a species of politicians that is now all but extinct once said - "To annouce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." (page 8)

As pointed out by Ritter, Bush and the radical neoconservatives are the real traitors to both the American public and the ideas for which our country has stood for since the 1770s.Indeed, the US will quickly become an internaitonal isolated, bankrupt, and Authoritarian nation if this group of ideologues is not removed during next year's elections.Thank you Mr. Scott Ritter, for helping others understand that patriotism means - to protect the ideas espoused in our Constitution, from enemies both foreign and domestic - you are an American patriot.

Reviews (53)

Review 5/2/2005
The book "Weapons of Mass Deception, the Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq," written by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber generally deals with the United States' current conflict in Iraq.However, it does not deal with the strategic side of the conflict itself but rather the steps taken to get there.This text focuses primarily on the supposed false information that President Bush and his administration provided the American public in order to gain their support.Rampton and Stauber deal with the psychological aspects that come with preparing a nations people for war.
Rampton and Stauber set out to make a contribution to their field by expressing their points of view in this particular text. The fundamental point that both authors set out to make is that the war in Iraq is a battle that is being fought unnecessarily, based on false pretenses. President Bush blatantly lied to a nation in order to better serve his own needs while asking thousands of men and women to give their lives in the process.Both authors make it their business to make clear the fraudulent steps that President Bush and his administration took in an effort to coerce a nation into believing that going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do.Furthermore, it is Rampton and Stauber's goal that after reading their work, American citizens will analyze carefully and be more skeptical of the different types of media that they come into contact with.
There are several areas covered in this text regarding the war in Iraq and the deceptive measures employed by President Bush while doing so.In fact, Rampton and Stauber claim that Bush was involved with the invasion of Iraq even before he was elected into office. Bush's key officials advocated the invasion all along but opted to wait until September 2002 to inform the public, through what the White House expressed as a product launch.This is simply the Bush administrations attempt at selling the war in Iraq to the American public through a well thought out public relations operation.The White House representatives apparently used propaganda along the lines of misinformation and constant replication in order to create the false notion that Iraq was behind the September 11th terrorist attacks on the United States.Additionally, there were allegedly forged documents which fabricate the claim that Iraq possessed vast supplies of destructive weapons.Apparently, Bush's public relations firm facilitated an opposition group known as the Iraqi National Congress, which contributed largely to the decision to go to war.While these lies were taking place, the American news media was entirely occupied with the propaganda being provided and continuously kept repeating White House communications.
"Weapons of Mass Deception, the Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq" is put together by authors Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber.Both men work for the Center for Media and Democracy; this is a non-profit association that Stauber himself founded in 1993 in an effort to observe and expose deceptive public relations campaigns and other assorted propaganda distributed by corporations and governments.John Stauber is a longtime activist who has worked in the field of public interest, consumer, family farm, environmental and community organizations at the local, state, and national levels.Co-author Sheldon Rampton is a graduate of Princeton University and has worked as a newspaper reporter, activist, and author.Rampton and Stauber are both clearly opposed to the work that the Bush administration has done while in office.In fact, based on the work that they have done with this text as well as past work, both men appear to be against any type of governmental or public relations group that misinforms the public on any issue.Rampton and Stauber present a strong argument throughout their book, supporting their points of view with documented facts.In addition, both authors remain true to their feelings and points of view in an uncompromising fashion; perhaps this is the most concrete element to their text.The only flaw, if any present in this book is that both men are partially biased because of their dislike for President Bush.It is likely that a supporter of President Bush would not be so critical of the tactics he has used in recent years.
This text seems to be quite useful and a positive addition to work in its field.It offers readers and consumers an alternative source of information that is able to rival the media.In addition, to it being an alternative source of information, it is written by well educated and experienced men who support their adamant views with concretely documented facts.Therefore, this text is not merely two liberal men running their mouths about issues they are not well versed in, but a brilliantly put together political argument.Lastly and perhaps most importantly, Rampton and Stauber attempt to relay an important message to the public; that they should never settle and accept information that the media and government give to them.There is always the right to question the government and related associations when the public is being misinformed.

A critical look at wartime discourse
In "Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq," coauthors Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber take a critical look at a very important subject.The authors cover a number of intriguing facets of both the war and its background.They analyze the U.S. "propaganda blitz" to improve the U.S.'s image in the Muslim world-a strategy they judge an "abject failure."They also look at some of the individuals and organizations that played roles in the leadup to war-among them Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress.

Rampton and Stauber accuse the Bush administration of many distortions in its attempt to "sell" the war as if it were a product.One of the book's most interesting sections is the authors' deconstruction of the Bush administration's wartime catchphrases: "axis of evil," "coalition of the willing," "shock and awe," etc.They critique not only the U.S. government, but also the Saudi regime.

The book also looks critically at the media's role in the war.The authors accuse the "right wing media echo chamber" of promoting a culture of fear and intimidation.Among the figures whose work they question are Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, and Ollie North.Particularly intriguing is the authors' look at differences in U.S. and Arab TV coverage of the war.

I should note that I am an Army Reserve officer who has done a tour (2003) in Afghanistan and is currently serving in Iraq, and that I am firmly committed to carrying out my mission.I was not bothered or offended by this book.I believe that the authors are doing a service in challenging Americans to be more careful and critical consumers of information.This book dares its readers to analyze and decode the messages that they receive from the government, the media, and the advertising industry; it also suggests that we need to know and learn from history.I recommend this book to readers regardless of their political persuasion.

Reviews (15)

It Only Lacks the Sixth Lie
It merely requires time and a little patience to see how a book like this one is prescient.What the authors have identified as Bush's lies justifying the USA invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has now acknowledged as "mistakes":

1. Al Qaeda had terrorist links to Iraq
2. Iraq had chemical and biological weapons
3. Iraq had nuclear weapons
4. The war and the occupation would be easy
5. Iraq is primed to become a model of democracy in the Middle East

Of course, the administration still holds out official hope for the fifth lie, but it is also the kind of hope the USA could have for 20 years even as it continually battles an ever-renewing insurgency of Iraqi patriots who hate the USA.Still, it is evident to the objective observer and from what we now know from the Iraqi people themselves: whatever the Iraqi people want for their government, it is not what the USA offers.

The Bush administration floated a sixth lie when the mendacious nature of the first five became evident.It is now claimed that the USA invaded Iraq for purely humanitarian reasons.Yet Human Rights Watch (HRW) accurately pointed out that though Saddam was no angel, the widespread nature of his abuses ended by the early 1990s, most of them occurring during the 80s when the USA considered him an ally.In fact, HRW argued that Saddam's abuses had declined so much that a persuasive case could not be made for militarily intervening in Iraq for humanitarian reasons.Add to that the fact that approximately 100,000 Iraqi noncombatants have died since the USA invasion, and malnutrition has increased in Iraq since the invasion (at levels in excess of those while Saddam was in power), then it becomes clear that the USA invasion and occupation has been a humanitarian disaster and the USA has lied about this as well.

If the authors decide to print another addition of this work, I urge them to include an analysis of this sixth lie as well.This needs to be settled: the USA has exhausted its excuses for it monstrous acts of barbarity in Iraq.

Spinmeister Scheer.....
Many pundits sling jargon or make blithely irrational arguments. Some, however, seem to specialize in twisting the facts to fit their ideology, continually making assertions that are at best unsupported and at worst blatantly false until they--and presumably their readers--come to accept these false tropes as truth. Robert Scheer, a nationally syndicated columnist for the Los Angeles Times, has established himself as the leader of this breed, with some of his worst spin coming since the September 11 attack. Sadly, this is only the latest iteration of a trend that can be seen in Scheer's columns throughout the year.

Read it all....
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20011008.html

Reviews (69)

Is Porn On Bin Laden, Chirac and Schroeder's Payrolls???????

Porn's yellow-journalism WON'T be taken half-seriously because this Über-Elitist refuses to be double-checked by confessing his supposed "sources"!!!! That alone disqualifies this tripe's merit; mercifully giving "benefit of the doubt" by reading his yellow-journalism beyond this hamper even unmasks further scandalous craftiness. Confessing liberals have NO LICIT reasons to daydream about charging Bush, a disconcerting exorbitance of Porn's "exposes" is NITPICKING. In Chapter One, he abuses Bush for "lying" about the Children's Health Insurance Program because Bush delayed its inception so he could designate money to facilitate Texas' 1997 tax cuts. Porn demonizes Bush as the bastard who "played politics" with 200,000 kids' health despite CHIP was passed, and Bush had important fiscal reasons to delay its progressiveness.

Liars, damned liars, and Bush
We know the President lies. But what this book confirms is far deeper than that.

It is that Bush's ENTIRE RECORD consists of lies.

Consider the self-righteous indignation that greeted Clinton's lie concerning sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky...told in part to protect the office of the President and three women: Lewinsky, Hilary Clinton and Chelsea Clinton...all of whom would be damaged in their personal lives by the truth.

Clinton's record, however, is not a series of lies as is Bush's.

It is an old maxim, from Plato to Kant, that a lie is an offense against truth which damages trust. As a result of Bush's continuous lying, half the country has for its sanity to reside in a fantasy zone, as does the poster below, where his inability to use Google "proves" nothing at all.

Political views become lifestyle, more an expression of a demented personality's desire for attention than anything else.

Grammar and syntax break down, as in the case where Sen. McCain's questioning of Bush's attendance at a Bob Jones University (sic!) function becomes the accusation that MCCAIN is accusing Bush of anti-Catholicism.

The event's text is searched, in other words, for the most convenient charge by crudely rearranging words.

And, the language is damaged by even calling this "mastery".

Basing our political views on methodological individualism and not seeing how groups, including speechwriters and flaks, Manufacture Consent, Bush becomes in the language of old-fashioned mastery a perverted cynosure.

Let's see. The "losers" are men of honor like Sen. McCain and the theodicy searches their resume for "defects of character" in order to avoid the conclusion that yes indeed, there are "conspiracies", the biggest to be a takeover of all three branches of government by corporations.

"Mastery" becomes empirical and measured by the appearance of success and the approbation of fools.

But "mastery" in this context needs to be renarrated as enslavement. There are clear indications (the non-firing of Rumsfeld being one) that Bush is the willing slave of a cabal of evil men, like the Gimp in the box in the basement, in Pulp Fiction.

Needed at this juncture is not Yet Another catalog of Bush's iniquities, and frankly, Peter Singer's book The President of Good and Evil: Taking George Bush Seriously has more depth.

Instead we can usefully regard Bush as a creature of our times, and our dark desires.

For some time in America, real rats and fools have become rich and famous. Because of this, the language changes to accomodate, simultaneously, the Rat Victories and the vastly more predominate cases where Nice Guys Finish Last.

In the 1950s, Sammy Glick and Willy Loman could be narrated as ultimate Losers in the emptiness, whether of Sammy Glick's material success or Loman's failure.

The problem, as stated in the creaky and deductive philosophy of Spinoza, is clear. If we at all admire, esteem, look up to, or even suck up to a Bush clone, whether on the national stage or the office, we are asserting values that contradict our natural instinct to eat bread and salt and speak the truth.

Of course, Puritanism, with its emphasis on unredeemability for most of us smokers, perversely makes space for this admiration in which the unshriven manifest their lack of election by admiring Don Trump.

The problem here is that Bush, unlike Sen.McCain or Howard Dean, refreshing scoffers as they are, proclaims, literally, that he is saved. This is odd, because he seems to feel no need to manifest salvation by any form of charity.

The problem is that today, MOST Americans use each other and the world with a complete lack of common sense or compassion and are gradually descending, one and all, into a Moronic Inferno of psychic chaos. And, they vote.

Bush expresses that chaos in his very syntax and as such is the cynosure of the doomed.


UPDATE 2-2-2005

Thanks to the meta-reviewers for the perfect score. If the people who gave this review a *non placet* are Bush supporters then I am pitching a perfect game in a sense for I displease those who are pleased with lies, damned lies, and George Bush. Of course, to convince them to support my case would be better, and a home run, with the bases loaded, by contrast to the more austere and intellectual pleasures of the perfect game.

The lies continue. In yesterday' column, Paul Krugman shows how the set of arguments used to show that Social Security is "broken" are contradictory with respect to the collection of arguments used to show how it is that rubes, who take their money out of withholding and head for Vegas, will create a sky-high 6.5-7 percent return on equities during the same period of time...a rate of return seen only during the Internet bubble.

Of course, the attraction of such an argument is that in logic and in a sense, arguments with contradictory premises imply anything.

The lies are for many Americans a convenient total substitute for truth on which they feed for mere hope as does the California body builder on supplements alone. The whole shebang, the complete virtual reality, is headed for its next exogenous shock as a result.

Editorial Review

Reviews (2)

Like a B movie
For all the hype, this is a really boring read.The writing is wooden and the story is tired.Nothing new at all, save your money

Editorial Review

Two leading advocates of "conservative internationalism" in foreign policy assemble a like-minded group of deep thinkers in Present Dangers. According to the editors--Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and William Kristol of The Weekly Standard--America's most significant threats come from within, rather than without. They worry that "the United States, the world's dominant power on whom the maintenance of international peace and the support of liberal democratic principles depends, will shrink its responsibilities and--in a fit of absentmindedness, or parsimony, or indifference--allow the international order that it created and sustains to collapse." As might be expected, the Clinton administration comes in for a thrashing on these pages. Ross H. Munro, an expert on China, writes: "However history judges [President] Clinton, the assessment of how his administration dealt with a rising China is certain to be harsh." In a chapter on Russia, Peter W. Rodman slams the Clintonites for "sentimentality," an "absurd doctrinal fetish" with arms control, and "an unwillingness to assert major American strategic interests and impose a penalty for harm done to them, lest the poor Russians feel hurt." There are other essays, too: Richard N. Perle on Iraq, Elliott Abrams on the Middle East, and William J. Bennett on the importance of morality and character in foreign policy. Clear thinking and straightforward writing mark each chapter.

Reviews (17)

A decent overview
The book is an adequate overview of President Bush's foreign policy through the first three years of his office.But it does not do justice to the more intelectually challenging questions of the administration's foreign policy such as why exactly did America go to war in Iraq and what kind of role are the neo-conservatives playing in the administration.

A reasoned, balanced critique of Bush's foreign policy
Unlike the rather vitrioic and harsh rhetoric of the Bush-hating left, this book presents a fair yet reasoned critique of the Bush foreign policy.It rebuts the common assertion that Bush is an idiot or that he is being a tool by a neo-conservative cabal.

As the authors demonstrate in this book, the major problem with American foreign policy under this administration is the rigid adherance to notions that are demonstratively false.The Bush Administration seems to believe that offending allies carries no risk and that multilateral institutions such as the United Nations, are worthless in the international sphere.
This view is dangerous and in my view, demonstrative of the stunning arrogance of the Bush Administration.

Features

• Magazine Subscription

Reviews (24)

National Review is very revealing !read it !
National Review is very revealing and more educational than any government school.

People sometimes mistakenly say that the National Review is "conservative" but that is misleading.NR criticizes both big-spending democrat-socialists like Clinton, and also republican-socialists who are twice as socialistic as Clinton (in social spending alone). The only way that NR can be called biased is that they drone on about the socialists (Democrats and Republicans) and ignore everyone who wants to cut government (Libertarians).

National Review is stuck in silly left-right political analysis, as taught in government schools. It is unaware of the Nolan chart or Diamond chart. It also uses the word "liberal" unprofessionally to mean "left." Its habit forgets the etymology of "liberal" for "liberty" (against government and for laissez-faire capitalism). That bad habit explains why republicans and democrats are the same: socialists.National Review is an example of why government schools are unconstitutional and must end.

NR doesn't do well addressing the massive growth in government in the USA. It seems like NR doesn't think that government in the USA is big enough yet.

NR is not libertarian and it uses the misnomer "public schools" to mean "government schools."No one would trust the government to tell the truth if it published newspapers or magazines like National Review. Why would the government tell the truth in government schools?

The National Review doesn't have a problem with "patriotism" and the pledge of allegiance. Big problem: People at NR don't arise each morning to gather with neighbors and robotically chant, as they only "love" the pledge when government's schools lead children in robotic chanting every morning for twelve years of their lives upon the ring of a bell, like Pavlov's lapdogs of the state. Did I mention that NR is an example of why government schools are unconstitutional and have destroyed a "free press" and why government schools must end?

NR suggests that it doesn't know that the pledge was written by a socialist (Francis Bellamy) in the USA and that the original salute was a straight-arm salute (as shown in web image searches for "original socialist salute"). NR doesn't know of the news-breaking discovery by the historian Rex Curry that the straight-arm salute of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazis) came from the military salute and from the original pledge of allegiance in the USA, and not from ancient Rome.NR doesn't realize that Bellamy put flags in every school to promote a government takeover of education for nationalization and socialism.

NR is an example of why some educated socialists (socialists who know the origin of the pledge) laugh at the National Review, because socialists presume that NR has been duped into supporting socialism and are ignorant of the pledge's socialist past.

To measure its intellectual honesty, you should consider that NR has never displayed a historic photograph of the original pledge of allegiance ever to their audience nor discussed the ominous parallels.

Francis Bellamy and his cousin and cohort Edward Bellamy were national socialists who idolized the military and wanted to nationalize the entire US economy, including all schools. It was a philosophy that led to the socialist Wholecaust (of which the Holocaust was a part) where millions were murdered (62 million by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 35 million by the Peoples' Republic of China, 21 million by the National Socialist German Workers' Party) in the worst slaughter in history. That is why the Bellamys are known as America's Nazis.All Holocaust Museums could expanded three-fold with Wholecaust Museums.

Yes, the government was taking over schools in the USA and imposing segregation by law and teaching racism as official policy. As under Nazism, Jehovah's Witnesses and others in the USA were persecuted for refusing to perform the straight-arm salute and robotically chant. They were also expelled from government schools and had to use the many better alternatives. Thereafter, the Bellamy legacy caused more police-state racism of forced busing that destroyed communities and neighborhoods and deepened hostilities.

After WWII ended, the USA's government schools continued segregation and racism, stopping in the 1960's.The USA also continued its Nazi numbering (social security from 1935) and its robotic pledge, with no stopping.

Today, the USA numbers babies, and government schools demand the numbers for enrollment, and the numbers track homes, workplaces, incomes, finances, and more, for life.School laws still tout the daily pledge, a bizarre ritual shunned by every other country.

NR has discussed plans for "reform" of social security.At the height of Nazi power, the USA's government deliberately stepped onto the same path with national numbering imposed in 1935 with the social security system.The federal government was growing massively and attempting to nationalize the economy in many ways.The US Supreme Court struck down much of the new legislation as unconstitutional until justices until the craven FDR pressured them into the "switch in time that socialized nine."

National Review has reported on social security reforms that would invest social security taxes in private businesses and provide an avenue for the government to nationalize all private businesses in addition to schools. It is a scheme that would impress the Bellamys.NR does not have the ethics to report the other side of the story (the proper side): ending government involvement in education, and ending the social security scam, its taxes and its Nazi numbering.If the antidisestablishmentarianism does not end, then the USA's police state will grow.

NR has another bad habit: overuse of the hackneyed word "Nazi" so much that it might cause one to wonder if they know what the abbreviation abbreviates. Many people forget that "Nazi" means "National Socialist German Workers' Party," and one reason people forget is because the word "Nazi" is overused by media mouthpieces (e.g. National Review) who never say the actual name of the horrid party.A good mnemonic device is that the sick socialist swastika represented two overlapping "S" letters for "socialism" under the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

It is a reminder that in many ways National Review and the media are still government mouthpieces.

Overall, the magazine is very revealing and educational and worth the time to review.Let's hope for improvements in the future.

One of the Worst Magazines Around
If you want to keep yourself in delusions and in the dark about what's really going on in the world, read this magazine. National Review is for people who sympathize with Christian jihadists and white supremacists. Wouldn't want to be in that camp if I were you.Read Time, Mother Jones, The Nation, or the American Prospect instead.

Features

• Magazine Subscription

Reviews (24)

A Good Conservative Magazine with some humor
One of the funniest magazines around.In a recent article, the Weekly Standard proposed massively expanding the IRS to help pay for the massive debt and budget deficit.Which group did the "Weekly Standard" say should be targeted for this increased IRS presence (and massive increase in tax rate - for some 100%)? The Entertainment Industry.The reality tv show contestants, the teen-pop singers and the like.The article noted that normally massive taxation would hurt an industry, but with all the people that really want fame, that go all out to get their 15 minutes of fame, the industry would continue along (I'm curious if O'Rourke realizes that the tax would be applied to similar writers).Another O'Rourke article provided the readers with an alternate Inaugural Address by Bush (subtitle: "What if George W. Bush weren't a compassionate conservative . . ."; quote: "The media say that I won the election on the strength of moral values.If the other fellow had become president, would the media have said that he won the election on the strength of immoral values?").

In all seriousness, this magazine is a very clear detailed neo-conservative look at the issues (neo-con? - interestingly, it would appear that many of the writers used to be liberals).The magazine does not always present just the conservative perspective, and does not always agree with Bush. Another recent article was by a current liberal, ex-communist British writer and his reaction to George Galloway's testimony before the US Senate. An editorial in that recent issue was all about the dictator in Uzbekistan, an US ally in the war on terror.The editorial notes that toleration of this dictator and his brutality will undermine Bush's current foreign policy.

It should be noted that the magazine does not seem to have journalists, and few staff writers, most appear to be called "contributing editors."

It is jarring, though, when I read the magazine then read articles in some of my other subscriptions."Variety" and "Weekly Standard" rarely agree.For that matter, I'm somewhat surprised by how often the "Weekly Standard" and "Business Week" disagree.

- Michael S. Briggs -

Great Magazine
After reading a few of the other reviews, I am again baffled by the left/liberal take on things.This is a CONSERVATIVE magazine!!Liberals, open at your own risk!You just MIGHT encounter a differing view point than you own!Goodness.The articles are informative, indepth, humorous, and thoughtful.It's a good read.

Reviews (634)

Insight into the conservative argument
I know that in the world of political writing I am way late in reading Sean Hannity's 2002 book.I did, however, find it an interesting read that had some issues that are still valid in the political realm right now.
While reading the other reviews, I found it amazing the amount of emotion that this book unleashed.Unfortunately the people using this forum as a political discussion arena both proved some of the arguments made in this book and gave no real insight into the book.
Without getting into a political discussion, anyone reading this book that knows anything about Sean Hannity knows that they will be getting a conservative view of the world in these pages.What I liked most of this book is that it put all of the political issues into context.Too often I hear people discussing politics as individual issues and never placing them into cause and effect relationships with other issues.For example, there is talk about the environment and gas prices.People will argue various reasons why gas prices continue to climb and blame "big oil".However, no one wants to build refineries in the United States to process the crude oil we have.These issues are intertwined and cannot be separated.Mr. Hannity connects the dots whether the reader likes them or not.
If you're looking for a book with a completely neutral political agenda, this is not it.However, it does present a truly conservative argument that is well thought out and can give a reader an intelligent insight into the conservative thought process.If your going to rant on about the "Right Wing Fascists" then don't read this book, but if you want to see how the conservatives have been and will continue to make their arguments for more personal freedom and responsibility, then read on.Mr. Hannity is true to the conservative cause in his basic core beliefs.He presents the issues that still effect us today with the conservative view that will help conservatives, moderates and liberals understand the arguments of the day whether you agree with him or not.
All in all I have to say this book still has some relevance even though some of the players have changed (i.e. Tom Daschle).A person engaged in a true political debate would want to read both sides of the story and this book presents the conservative view as coherently as I have seen it before.

Loving Sean more and more every time
This book is a must have for any intelligent reader who knows what true Liberty is and those who recognize how Liberalism (or as I like to call it, "The anything goes attitude") is hurting America. It's not just the opinion of the author that fills up the pages of this book but there's also facts and truth packed into the paragraphs to back up each and every statement.

Sean's comments are insightful and intriguing and anyone who says other wise and down plays how helpful this book is in understanding what's going on in America, is probably a Liberal and can't take the fact that the views of their party is destroying this once great Country.

I highly recommend this book and after taking a chance to read it, you will too.

Reviews (6)

Worrying revelations
Like a lot of people all over the world, we wondered why the U.S. needed to go to war (and with the wrong country) when Europe had dealt with its terror problems in the past (I.R.A., E.T.A., Algerian separatists, Red Brigade etc.,) through old-fashioned police-work, choking off finance, intelligence gathering and arrests. We (allies and non-allies alike) also weren't buying the 'WMD's on every corner' and 'links with U.B.L. and terror' thing either. It was all a bit too flimsy, and the reasons for war changed every month as the prior ones got picked to shreds.

So rather than being an ill-informed 'Bush-basher', I devouredbooks by the barrow load (including this one) to try to get to the bottom of it all. The sources all seem to check out (I looked up several) and there doesn't seem to be any 'selective interpretation' of the facts either.

But as any good journo would tell you, cross-check your facts! I recommend you also read:
Owen Harries - 'Benign or Imperial?'
Noam Chomsky - 'Hegemony or survival' (I know his politics are left of centre, but that doesn't entirely invalidate some facts and insights he gives)
George Soros - The bubble of American Supremacy'
Clyde Prestowitz - 'Rogue Nation'
Greg Palast - 'The best democracy money can buy' (requires some filtering - he ocassionally draws too long a bow)
Bob Woodward - 'Plan of Attack'

Balance these against books from 'the right', but avoid the literary 'Genghis Khan is a wimp' types (I.E. Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter et al).

This president has changed your country from being one of the most sympathised with post 9-11, to THE most hated nation on the planet. If you want to know why, read this book and the others, and don't swallow that rubbish about 'it's because they envy our democracy and freedom' etc. Scandinavia has the same freedoms and an arguably higher standard of living than the U.S. yet doesn't have a tenth the problems.

I urge you to read this book and others before you vote - it's a real eye-opener.

Crude Politics:Biased journalist
Though I'm somewhat impressed with the author's access to facts, I'm dismayed at his illogical use of them.Anyone in this country who depends on trucks, that transport food and all consumer goods and necessities, ought to be concerned with the price we pay for gasoline in this country.If we allowed the terrorists to control the production of middle eastern oil, I hope anyone who votes against President Bush, will be happy paying somewhere around $6-8.00 per gallon of gasoline.A vote for J. Kerry will do that to us.Remember these words.

A little oil on the side never hurts.
Crude Politics is one of the better books I've read or heard about in this time of political unrest.I was first drawn to it because of the author's position;

"Paul Sperry is the Washington bureau chief at WorldNetDaily.com, a position he previously held at Investor's Business Daily, where he wrote for 12 years. A Hoover Institution media fellow, his reports on national security issues have been picked up by virtually every major news agency in the world. Sperry's journalistic courage and integrity are backed by years of experience, including extensive reporting and editing on national affairs, economics, manufacturing, real estate, and general business coverage." - WorldNetDaily.com website.

For those who haven't visited the site, WorldNetDaily.com website is usually a very right-wing news group, often posting stories that support a right-wing agenda.

The position of the author is important because he says in his book that he voted republican in the last few elections and even for now President Bush.The website also reinforces how conservative this reporter is by recounting Sperry's 1999 clash with President Bill Clinton on questions over the "Chinagate" fund-raising scandal that led him to be banned from the White House for the duration of the presidency.

So why then has this author written a book denouncing the Bush administration's agenda on the war on terror?Has he flipped sides?Hardly.He is just one of many who have growing concerns that the legitimate war on terror has been hijacked to serve the personal, economic interests of a few oil barons.

Sperry gives a great deal of attention not to Iraq (as this book was being written at the time the US was just about to invade Iraq), but to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia; three countries that have been working to secure an oil and natural gas pipeline in the Caspian Basin for over a decade.Sperry shows how the Bush administration transformed the war on terror as an "in" to this same pipeline deal that will prove to be one of the world's most wealthy oil and natural gas sources.

For those who claim that Bush and his administration are only concerned with the American public's safety, this book will enlighten them that, although they may indeed care about us, they care more about their pocket-books and long-term oil ventures.

Why would people like Bush, who comes from a long line of oil men, who have many decades of strong allegiances with Saudi oil men, suddenly stop all pursuits of oil, just to serve the American public for a few years?Why would Vice President Cheney, former CEO of Halliburton, one of the biggest oil contractors in the world, suddenly ignore the prospect of buried oil treasures overseas?And why would national security advisor Condoleezza Rice trash a decade of serving the Chevron Corp (who liked her work so much they named an oil tanker after her) just to fight some terrorists?

It doesn't add up.These people have oil coursing through their veins, and to suggest they've given it all up on purely moral grounds is like saying I don't need air to breathe anymore.

Reviews (5)

Why Anti-Iraq War Leftists and Jew-Haters Hate Wurmser
The real kicker here is that Wurmser wrote this a couple of years before 911. To the anti-war wackos this is supposed to be evidence of a cabal of hook-nosed war mongers in some pentagon basement. The cold truth is that THE WAR SADDAM WAS WAGING IN THE 1990s AND THE USA'S LACK OF RESOLVE TO DESTROYING THAT EVIL MAN MADE THE USA LOOK WEAK IN THE EYES OF BIN LADEN AND ENCOURAGED BIN LADEN TO DO MORE DAMAGE.

Through Wurmser's analysis, you will be persuaded that America's invasion of Iraq and arrest of Saddam Hussein was not only the right action, but an essential strategic stepping stone to destroying the terrorist networks.

You get an analysis of why the UN was powerless to shut Saddam's terror operation down, why the media elite and the CIA hated Chalabi even before Chalabi's recent scandal.

You get a real sense of the hatred of Saddam for the House of Saud and the Jordanian Hashemite monarchy. You find out why Iran will use Iraq's and Syria's left-wing socialism to widen its scope of terror.

In a post-911 world it adds up to the long-term STRATEGIC THREAT TO U. S. INTERESTS POSED BYSADDAM HUSSEIN, AND THE CONSTANT SPONSORSHIP OF TERROR PLOTS BY SADDAM HUSSEIN.

The Jew-Haters and Anti-War Lefists now hate Wurmser and always include Wurmser in their rant against the pentagon. The kook theory is that a new imperialistic agenda was spelled out in secret by American Jews shilling for Israel.

In their sick anti-war worldview, the public is commanded to hate David Wurmser. Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith. Can you see how sick the ant-war anti-semites are?

You can hear these anti-war, anti-semitic diatribes in the media almost daily.

The political strategy (which plays into the hands of the enemy)is to weaken resolve for the war effort by scapegoating Wurmser and company for casualties of US soldiers. The anti-Iraq war crowd wishes to brainwash the public that the war as another Vietnam and re-casting today's pentagon to look like McNamara's pentagon.

The anti-war strategy won't work. If I can see through it, anyone can.

Saddam the key to PLO strength
It is amazing that Mr. Wurmser called it so early.The most significant mention in the book that is probably not noted sufficiently is his statement regarding the fact that so long as Saddam remains in power the PLO has a veto in the peace process.