Title should be more like Obama vs. Ayn RANT
583625
Interesting and thought provoking but the "debate" concept of the book was written poorly.  It mostly revolved around a few points of Obama then transitioned into Ayn Rand ranting on about how Obama is Hitler (a bit of an overreach) to solidify her point of view.  Her arguments have some validity and any trump supporters should read this to be able to somewhat validate their reasons for voting for someone like him. Even though none would be able to articulate any of Ayn Rand's thoughts.  It is a good resource for gaining insight to what kind of person Ayn rand is and gives some perspective when reading her other works.
3253373
By Bill Marsano. Some people are still Clinton/Obama True Believers. I can't imagine why, given the public record, but there it is. Suchpeople can't be helped, only endured. More realistic people will find their eyes opened regarding the two First Couples, considered separately and in what the author calls their Blood Feud. The feud is this: they can't stand each other, but Clinton was still dragooned into helping O. by giving the killer convention speech that got him re-elected. The price? O would absolutely back Hilary for her 2016 candidacy. The feud is inflamed by the fact that the C.'s are convinced O. is double-crossing them. Yes, O. named Hilary Secretary of State, but he immediately gave North Korea and the Middle East to special en-voys for fear that Hilkary might accomplish something. (And just as well, too, considering how she screwed up the State Dept.).  And ever since then it's been clear to the C.'s that O. is going back  on his word. Sure, he called Hilary a `great' Secretary of State--everyone knew he didn't mean it, and he knew they knew. What about his sudden flirtation with Mass. Sen. Elizabeth Warren? She's much more the hard-left socialist type than Hilary, who is going to run
AWAY from O's agenda. The C.'s don't forget and they don't forgive, hence the blood feud. The portraits of the principals that emerge are delightfully dishy and probably dead-on. O. IS self-centered, thin-skinned, inat-tentive, inconsiderate, self-impressed. After all, this is a World's Most Powerful Person who flirted outrageously with the blonde bimbo head of Denmark in public! At a memorial service! For hishero Nelson Mandela! In front of his wife! He's even turned off ex-BFF Oprah! Mr.s O. emerges as pretty much of a cipher, and that was before her ridiculous `bringbackourgirls' hashtag/publicity stunt, while it's Val-erie Jarrett who earns Piece of Work status, the arch-schemer always telling O. that it's OK to break all his promises. Hilary, even during her Noble Wronged Wife years, was never a sympathetic character and still isn't. Her nasty 'what difference does it make' outburst re Benghazi, amply displayed her cold-hearted disregard for others.  The only winner is Bill, who has higher ratings today than he ever did. He's just as much of a phony as ever, butboy can he sell it (people think his `Build Back Better' campaign, for example, actually put lots of Haitians in houses. People are wrong.).
But the big `win' (a Hilary presidency) may still elude him if O. doesn't live up to his end of the bargain, hence the blood feud. Can't wait for this to play out--can you? Now to an important point: is any of this stuff true? Almost all of the most important remarks are from anonymous sources. Maybe Ed Klein made all this stuff up? Faked it? Exaggerated wildly? I don't think so: there's a strong logical consistency at work here, and of course people do like to dish but don't like to be identified. That's especially true in Washington: most people who go there never come out, so it's important to be careful. That's why the NYTimes, Washington Post and almost all other media use anonymous stuuf ALL THE TIME. Klein writes serviceable, workmanlike prose, and that's all that's called for here, so claims by some reviewers that it's `poorly written' and off-base, and those who say Klein lies do not, I note, trouble to offer any examples. Bill Marsano is a veteran writer and editor.
4054331
In this book, Reagan is said to have a solid gold cocaine vial, Bush does "wonderland wafers," and the CIA is said to have mind-controlled children working as computer programmers ("Compu-Kids"). By now, this is all just common knowledge. But while this book does a lot to enlighten people about the Reagans/Bushes and the NWO in general, I am really unhappy at the author's reaction to events within the book.

But here's my problem with this book: not ONCE does the author thank Cheney or Bush or anyone for all the atomic cocaine that she's tooted. Show a little common courtesy, Cathy! If I get dragged into Yucca Mountain, mentally re-programmed, and made to snort my weight in biscuit powder from Junior's toot-bin, I'd at least thank him for being a gracious host. I mean, say what you will about those lizard people, but they have access to some grade-A, top shelf, high concentrate weasel dust. And s*** ain't cheap.

Oh and also, she uses too many sentance fragments in her prose."
1763002
Only the most radical anti-Obama readers will find this enjoyable. The story line is so over the top I had to force myself to finish.  I am a constitutional conservative and believe we do need to reform our federal government,  but the methods in this book are abhorrent.
2940649
I'm listening to the audiobook version,  I'm in chapter 5 and I the only reason I'm listening to it is because I can't believe all of the petty things being said to tear down the Obama family. Its kinda like listening to a woman gossip about someone she doesn't like by picking every petty little thing apart about them. She acts like the Obamas are not human beings by trying to cast this negative image on their everyday normal family issues. Every family has things they have to work out when they don't see eye to eye.  This book is so ridiculous that I have to read it.
4145018
Relying on Bowden's reputation I bought this book without checking it out.

What I found was a "campaign book" i. e. one written to further a political
campaign in progress. In this case: Obama's.

The big problem is that once you see something you know about has been doctored
you can't trust the parts you don't know about without corroboration.

A real disappointment!
1716590
A poor cover for venting the author's hatred towards Barak Obama
3497156
This book has an underlying agenda that really didn't need to be there to make it an enjoyable read.

Read the synopsis again (like I did, to see if I missed something after reading the book, which I had not), and then add this to it:  "Into this mix comes Max Davis, a twentysomething cello virtuoso, real-life prodigy, and his homosexual partner from India, who we're going to hear way TMI about his and Max's personal life ".... There was no reason to dwell on this aspect of Max's character.  I have no desire whatsoever to read about their homosexual tendencies in the sack, and I have little use for authors that just love to use the 'F' word as a crutch in their books.  Threaded neatly throughout the story are all the little hints of eeeevil Republicans, Obama '12 bumperstickers, and the final insult is the allusion at the end of the book about the homosexual happily married couple expecting their first child.  The book had potential, but all I can figure is Mr. Hopson's personal tendencies have shaded the book.  If you're a homosexual architect that designs 'sustainable environments' (another tip to one of the characters in the book) and is volunteering for the local DNC or walking around with socialist signs and chanting inane political slogans, this book is for you.
4815607
What staggering chain reaction of catastrophes allowed Ann Coulter to command a pencil?

Clearly, an ego as huge and wantonly abrasive as hers belongs on daytime TV or talk radio.  She's ignorant, arrogant, and utterly vicious.  It hurts the conservatives to have someone like this on their side.

This book should have been called "Who Needs Facts?"  There isn't a single fact in this book.  I repeat, NOT ONE SINGLE FACT.  Coming up with moderately clever ways of stretching any viewpoint other than her own into an artless caricature of itself, then smugly and ruthlessly slamming everyone who holds that viewpoint, is much more fun (and more satisfying) than doing research.  Coulter doesn't need facts.  After all, if anyone asks her why liberals are evil, she can just tell them it's because God said so.

Let me assert that I am not a liberal only here to take potshots at a well-known conservative.  I am in the middle of the political road.  My view is that both extremes are usually wrong.  As an example, one of the guys in my workplace is the stereotypical angry young liberal: loud, opinionated, arrogant, abrasive, and ready to lay every problem in the civilized world at the feet of our current conservative President, GW Bush.  Obviously, there are things wrong out there that have nothing to do with President Bush, but you just can't tell this guy that.  As far as he's concerned, conservatives have ruined this country.

Ann Coulter is the same thing only backwards.  She would have you believe all liberals are boorish, unshaven, tree-hugging hooligans. They bathe in the blood of murdered babies. They want everyone else to have to bathe in the blood of murdered babies. They only stop short of international terrorism because they lack the ability to organize.  You think I'm exaggerating?  I'm not.  Coulter says things about liberals that I wouldn't say about Nazis (a group which, incidentally, she compares liberals to in several places).  This book entwines ignorance, invective, and outright fabrication into a wretched, half-congealed mess, and then presents it as "the truth".  It's not her ignorance that offends me.  It's her smug sense of superiority I can't stand.  I read a lot: I've got three large bookcases, all full, and this is the worst excuse for a book I can remember ever reading.

If you:

are a hardcore conservative;

are a hardcore Christian;

are a fan of opinion in its most distilled and rarefied form;

have a room-temperature IQ;

then this is your book.

Everyone else, stay away.
1436863
Like a lot of reviewers here, I've never been a big fan of the Clintons and fully intend on voting for Trump this next election.  But having said that, I was still disappointed in this book.  I thank Mr. Byrne for his service and have no doubt he is a man of fine character, but if I were to judge this work on its qualities as a book, alone, it is a fair effort at best.  I found the writing flow to be somewhat stilted, with quite a few inappropriate words interjected, perhaps by a software grammar checker.  Not well edited and somewhat amateurish...Mr. Byrne deserved better editing and writing help.  Most importantly, the title is deceiving.  Other than a broken vase and a black eye for Bill, not anything new or surprising here and the book focused more on Mr. Byrne's career and on Bill's antics with Hillary's coverage being much less than the book title would have you believe.  More about Mr. Byrne "doing the right thing" throughout his storied career, than any large focus on Hillary.  I did like how he at least came back to Hillary with a nice summation at the end of the book, but only after the reader had to listen to criticisms of former employers (no overtime pay for a humanitarian mission to Cyprus, etc.)...I was hoping for less complaining and more dirt on Hillary! :)  It's obvious the title and cover photo were marketing ploys.
917418
The discussion on Obama's record on gun control was very disappointingly superficial.  Miller mentions Obama's response to a 1996 candidate survey, but leaves out the most important fact that he had handwritten notes in his handwriting on the form.  That is important because the 1996 survey has already been widely discussed and the Obama campaign and his defenders have claimed that the survey was filled out by a staffer on Obama's campaign.  Media Matters in their attack on Miller's book repeats this claim.  If Miller wants to arm readers with facts, why only give them part of the story that leaves the left to repeat their false responses and gives the reader nothing to respond with?  Why not mention that this same type of answer was provided in candidate questionaires in 1998 and 2000?  Would it have taken more than a couple sentences to do this?  The discussion about Fast & Furious has already been done much better and more completely by others.

Unfortunately, I found myself constantly screaming at the book about the left out material that would leave most readers uninformed.

Those many problems aside, Miller's book largely reprints her widely circulated column in the Washington Times.  Those columns were good, and it was good to have the problems of getting a permit in DC documented, even if the story wasn't surprising.  The stories were already collected in one place on the Washington Times website.  But why repeat an already well publicized story?  I just don't see the point of spending about $17 for another copy of those columns (even the Kindle version costs $14.99).  And one wonders whether Miller really took the time necessary to do the research required in the rest of the book.
3168010
Upon reading this book, I was quite dissatisfied with the one-sided view from a person who associates with the other party that had more cronies in it than the current administration. To me that is what you call a hypocrite. If you support Bush and his cronies and all the underhanded things that his administration did, then this is the book for you. But if you are someone who has watched the last 8 years, go to the library, read the book and then post your opinion. Don't give this woman any more royalities than she is already getting. I don't think I have ever read a book that disgusted me so much that I threw it in the trash, as that is what it is. Michelle, you need to take a good long look in the mirror and go back in time and think about the war and how we got in it. The public reason that Bush gave is not a true fact. And Obama HAS pulled troops out of Iraq. They are basically running on their own now. You say your sources are accurate...wrong!!! I truly hope that you do a book signing in Texas...I will have a load of protestors on hand for you.
2329140
I bought this book because John Barnes had a story in Lightspeed Magazine that I really enjoyed. Unfortunately, Directive 51 did not live up to those standards. It starts out as a decent sci-fi political thriller but soon morphs into a cartoonish strawman parody of gubmint liberals who are destroying the country in spite of the best effort of the true conservatives who just love America so much.

The plot of the book is that the infrastructure of the United States (and the rest of the world too, I think, though other countries are barely mentioned) is destroyed by an alliance of domestic terrorists and a fictional version of Al Qaeda. The domestics are environmental extremists who want to kill The Big System with plastic-eating nanos and the others operate out of an "unnamed cave in Afghanistan" and deploy a super fusion bomb. It turns out that all the feel-good environmentalists were just unwitting pawns of the mastermind criminal terrorists. Yawn.

The U.S. is unable to assess the threat of this bomb because Obama shut down research a few decades earlier. The only ones who are really prepared for the collapse are the wealthy Libertarians who built literal castles (with bunkers and barbed wire) to protect their families from mobs. They promise to restore order to the surrounding areas.

Meanwhile the president is incapacitated and leadership makes its way down the chain to the power-hungry Senate President Pro-Tem, a Democrat with "old-school" politics. (And since this is the future, "old-school" means present day for the reader, remember.) He immediately starts handing out corruption and nepotism like candy and creates a National Unity Guard of teenagers wearing red berets. He insists on holding national elections and spends the entire presidential debate promising handouts and saying, "On Tuesday, vote STRAIGHT DEMOCRAT!"

By contrast, his Republican opponent wants to add the 10 Commandments to the Bill of Rights but is willing to table that goal in the interest of national unity in a time of crisis. His speeches are allegedly brilliant but rarely quoted in the text. We have to take the omniscient narration at face value when it says they are plain-spoken and appealing to people of all political stripes. No hero worship going on here, nope.

I stopped reading about 60% of the way through. That's when the acting president sends his red-berets to shut down a newspaper that published an op-ed article calling for his impeachment. When a reporter protests, a red-beret pulls out a gun and says, "It's not your f**ing Constitution, you f**ing Republican!"

Yeah. That really happened.
622101
The first half of this book is written like an info-mercial with the author's personal rants on the government and corporate conspiracies to keep us all fat. I get it, but wondering if this is the best title for a personal manifesto. The author does provides some usable information in the last half of the book, but I was pretty annoyed by the time I finally got to the good stuff.
93896
While Emily does make some points worth repeating, for the most part, it is rubbish and half truths directed at someone who is little more than a puppet. She never seems to want to go after the root cause of the problem, that being those who are really in control.

Look at the most powerful positions in the United States government, and each and every one of them is non-elected. CIA FBI Federal Reserve CFR.... these are the people who run things, decide elections, control the media. Not Obama. I don't like Obama one bit either, but lets place the blame and frustration in its proper place.

This is a lady who has had an EXTREME amount of play in Washington DC, including roles in both promoting the Iraq war on false information and the Jack Abramoff scandal. Not to mention holding positions in some very questionable political cabinets in the republican party.

It would be wise to look at this source of information before taking it seriously. She is little more than a political pawn spewing half truths and never really hitting at the root cause of America's fight for freedom.
188069
I've read all of Bill's non-fiction "The Killing of..." books and I really enjoy them. I thought this might be a good read too. It wasn't. Within the first two chapter he states that the NY Times didn't write about the death of Tony Snow (WH press secretary for Bush) and this seemed odd so I searched online and found several NY Times articles on Tony's death. I'm not sure why Bill would lie but as I read on it become clear.

Bill compares Bush's response to Katrina with Obama's response to BP oil spill in the gulf. He admits that Obama let BP do the initial containment and that is was a mistake. As we all know, hindsight is 20/20, but it was a BP oil spill and they should have cleaned up their mess. Sure things could have been better but that is always the case. Obama had a plan and it was BP. Not perfect but it was a plan. What about Bush's response? He didn't have the luxury of a private company to help with Katrina, but what was his timely response? No, comparison.

He goes on to slam the Nobel Peace Prize because it was awarded to Obama in 2009. Seriously, Bill needs to do a better job on his research and understand why the award was given. I'm starting to wonder about all his "The Killing of..." books. Are they also filled with swallow research and filled in with good stories to sell books. I hope not. I liked those books and they seemed real, but you have to wonder now.

This was the best sentence of the first couple chapters, "It is soooooo boring to hear Obama supporters bleating out approval no matter what the President does." I makes me wonder what he thinks about Trump and his supporters. As a lifelong Republican I had to go independent, when Trump in 2016 stated that he could kill someone on 5th Ave and his supporter would still love him. Sounds a lot worse than how Bill describes Obama supporters.

I didn't finish the book. I was looking for a balanced and facted based look at today's politics but Bill didn't come close. If you like Bill's other books beware this one is much different and could be a huge waste of time.
4760838
Rather than a How-to book, it reads like a polemic on the present administration's wish list of world domination and homeland Big Brother with a complete alienation of civil and private rights thrown in as a bonus. Under such a regime even justice Thomas couldn't engage in getting his dose of porn because Ashcroft would be watching. (But then again he could probably get away with it by finding a new "Anita Hill" to blame and beat on for his own shallow short comings for which he was not man enough during his selection process to owe up to.)

If this is "the book" on how to win the War on Terror, why not just start WWIII? WWI was started with an assination and we went to war to save the world for "Democracy" sound familiar i.e. President Bush's new tom-tom speeches as to why we went to Iraq. Oh! Yes, we were looking for WMD's but since they could not be found why not invent a new rational; after all Americans are dumb according to  Bush-Cheney and their neo-con advisers. Besides their patron saint, Leo Strauss, the father of neo-cons said it was alright to "lie" to the people if the ends were justified, also a govenment needs an enemy (see S.B. Drury Leo Strauss and the American Right) and since we no long have the "Cold War" Iraq will do. After all it has "better targets" to use the words of Rumsfeld (see R.A. Clarke Against All Enemies)

In WWII we had Pearl Harbor a legitimate reason to go to war against a known enemy. We of course have 9/11 against an undetectable enemy. But in finding out that the enemy was cultivated by the Regan administration (who also had the same neo-con hacks working for it) and then abandoned by the first President Bush who also supported Iraq in its war against Iran and who may have been involved in the Iran-Contra dealings (we'll never know because the current President Bush has sealed those documents for all time (see Kitty Kelly The Family)) it gives me great comfort to know that the present administration has got the right handle on getting the job done against terrorists. (In fact good old "Rumy" went to Iraq to shake Saddam's hand but that's another story (see James Mann Rise of the Vulcans).)I could go on, but I think you get the picture. Oh Yes! Lets not forget that 14 out of the 19 plane hijakers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia (see The 9/11 Commission Report). But no matter, the Saudi's are our friends and we need them for the oil to drive govenor Arnold's Hummers (he has 6 you know) and all the other SUV's in America.

Mr. Frum and Mr. Perle need to get a reality check as to what is going on. If they think that America is as dumb as they believe in writing this book the way they have, they are sorely mistaken. Of course politcal hacks and trite pundits like Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity will stand up and cheer for such a shallow book as will others on the far right and other neo-con breathern. But to the descerning person save your money.

I think Mr. Frum needs to go back to writing speeches for the political hacks he knows so well. Moreover, he can go back to writing Mr. Bush's scripts (see Ron Suskind The Price of Loyalty) because without having the words the President of United States appears on the world wide media stage as the sorry C student he was at Yale. Or as Paul O'Neill put it in describing how the President conducts his cabinet meetings for the two years he observed him  "... like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discenible connection." Well he certainly didn't connect during his first debate speech did he? And no amound of coaching is going to correct years of intellectual neglect and shallowness of mind.

As I said I think one should save his money and wait for this book to appear on the $1.00 table in Big Lots or the Dollar Shop. And then if you buy it you will be treated to a wonderful book of fiction that would make Orwell blush.

But of course as Rush Limbaugh and the other pundits on the right like to say "its only my opinion."