Agencies

But it's not. Fascinating look at the system's hunters. The only drawback is that the author sometimes leads you to action, only to cut away and never fully answers your questions. A good read.

Carsten Stroud has never been a historian or a documentarian, but he admits this. His objective is to capture the sights and sounds of an area, event, profession. His writing style is very dramatic but readable. There is nothing melodramatic or corny about his works. Somehow he always manages to hit the nail on the head. The reader is left thinking, "Yeah, that's right. That's what it's like." or, "Damm that's the truth. That's why I'm a cop or a soldier". So to use the overworked phrase - Stroud's books are very truthful. Deadly Force takes you into not only the world of the Marshals, but the world of the fugitive. And the end result is that you're glad those fellas are out there doing the job. I recommend all of Stroud's books. Deadly Force isn't his best work, but it's still right up there.He lacks Clancey's verbosity which I find to be a relief. It keeps your attention and it has some very suspenseful moments. Some nice attention to details as well, though there are some technical errors I found them to be forgiveable. Good book. Give it a chance.

Carsten Stroud grabs you quickly and doesn't let go. This book will take you on a NON-fiction rollercoaster of manhunts, office politics and personal struggle. This book offers insight into the federal law enforcement world that is hard to find, including the battles between agencies. It will show you what it is to be a U.S. Deputy Marshal, and why they are such a proud and strong agency. The action in this book will keep you turning the pages late into the night. This book does however require a strong reader as it can be a little difficult to follow, and also some of the slang terms can be confusing to people not familiar with the world of law enforcement.

I fancy myself something of a foreign policy maven, who's waded few quite a few ponderous tomes that few ordinary readers would stomach. Yet even I found it difficult to stick with this overweight, almost agonizingly dull "treatise" on the history of the Afghan rebels and Bin Laden's subsequent anti-US vendetta.

Up front, the author doesn't bother to give many any sign posts about where he's headed; he just sort of launches into the story, expecting us to stay patiently along for the whole ride. He has lots of cute "inside the Beltway" details about which CIA station agent thought what about which mujehadin faction, but there are not a lot of revelations here, especially per pound. He's pretty kind to people like "Bill" Casey, former head of the CIA -- not spending much time on the fellow's "darker" side. He also doesn't provide much of a perspective on the broader strategic context, tunnelling right in from the start on Afghanistan, and largely leaving to one side the important "context" in countries like Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. Without an editor, of course, that would have made it an even longer book. But perhaps because he IS an editor, Mr. Coll didn't need one. The book also adopts, in places, a kind of breezy idealization of certain Afghan rebels like Massoud, with barely disguised sneers at the bloody Soviet Army, evidently some of the "bad guys." These days, with the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan in a situation that bears some resemblance to that of the Soviets -- down to the attempted reform of Islamic values, the creation of new governments and a surrogate army -one wonders if a somewhat more balanced perspective might not be deserved. Finally, even the footnotes are a waste of time, many of them just referring to confidential interviews in general without even a time or a place.

In short -- unless you are required to read this book for some reason, or need a doorstop, just skim it in the bookstore.

Ghost wars is an excellent reporting job by Steve Coll. More direct quotes would have been welcomed, but overall, the research and the reporting is enough to project an elightening view on the massively complex Afghan situation America got into after the Russian invasion up to this very day.

A number of things come to light not easily communicated to the American public by our media.

1. A policy to trail and kill bin Laden and his associates was undertaken by the Clinton administration. The "wag the dog" BS of the republican zealots after the missile strike of 1998 did not encourage the administration to push using troops of any kind.

2. Pakistan's position today is extrememly delicate. They did a massive amount to aid the Taliban over the Russian invasion and up to 9/11. There should be no surprise in the difficulty that remains in getting to get "full" support on destroying the jihadis crossing the Afghan/Pakistan border. Their intelligence service is about as troubled as our own.

3. Reagan policy of arming Afgans to the teeth then abandoning them completely is one of the biggest mistakes in American foreign policy in history.

4. Clinton policy on bin Laden was scattered and non productive. The C.I.A. did little to earn the full trust of the administration with spotty intel.

5. "Does America Need the C.I.A. ?" Good question, if anybody has a good answer, tell Bush - he is still looking for Iraq's weapons.

By the very nature of our country, the intelligence services are bureaucracies. Yet the trouble with trusing the C.I.A. goes way back. Kennedy doubted them, Nixon doubted them, Ford chaired the committee to question their existence.
Real reform of the C.I.A. doesn't look rosy. If we spent $87 billion on trying to build friends in the arab world instead of bombing their back yard, maybe we'd get somewhere and wouldn't have to ask the impossible from the C.I.A. and blame them when it all goes wrong.

"Afghanistanism" used to be a derisive term in the newspaper world. It meant playing up news from obscure far-off places while neglecting what was going wrong on your own home turf.

No longer. Very few countries worldwide have been more important to the U.S. over the past quarter century than this remote, primitive, landlocked and little-understood area tucked in between Iran, Pakistan and the former U.S.S.R. In this weighty and immensely detailed book, Steve Coll, who reported from Afghanistan for the Washington Post (where he is now managing editor) between 1989 and 1992, sorts out for the patient reader one of the most complex diplomatic and military involvements the U.S. has experienced in this century.

The cast of characters is immense, rivaling for sheer size (and personal quirkiness) any novel by Dickens or Dostoyevsky. It ranges from four U.S. Presidents through a platoon of bemedaled generals from five or six countries and a regiment of scheming diplomats down to hard-pressed pilots, miserably ill-equipped guerilla fighters, steely-eyed assassins and suicide bombers. There are more political factions here than most readers will be able to keep track of --- not to mention the factions that spring up within factions. It is all quite dizzying, but also fascinating and important.

Coll is a conscientious reporter. He does his best to keep the reader informed and to make his more important players come alive as human beings. His book is not easy reading, but it rewards well anyone who buckles down and stays with it to the end.

A couple of general impressions: First, Coll demonstrates time and again how much of the really important things that government --- any government --- does in foreign relations is done in deep secrecy, far from the eyes and ears of the average consumer of "news." Secondly, he leaves the impression that disdain and hatred of non-Muslims is pretty much pervasive throughout the Muslim world, coloring the actions and judgments even of those Muslims whom westerners might not consider "extremists."

Another leitmotiv in this almost Wagnerian epic drama is a pervasive lack of interest on the part of American policymakers in the developing crisis in Afghanistan, followed by paralyzing intra-agency squabbles and turf battles once the threat of terrorism became unavoidable. One is reminded of Dickens's satirical governmental invention, the "Circumlocution Office" in Little Dorrit with its famous motto: How Not To Do It.

Coll covers in exhaustive detail the defeat and withdrawal of the Soviet Union; the factional warfare that ensued; the rise of the Taliban from a small cadre of student zealots to a force that ruled most of the country; the emergence of Osama bin Laden; the clumsy and ineffective efforts of the U.S. government to get meaningful cooperation from Saudi Arabia and/or Pakistan in stabilizing and democratizing the region; and the ominous events that led up to --- but did not precisely signal -- the attacks of Sept. 11th. He is especially good on the lack of interest and decisive action by the U.S. after the Russian withdrawal and on the paralyzing rivalries between competing governmental spook shops that caused this breakdown. Action plans would be developed, only to be derailed by fruitless internal debates and objections. "How Not To Do It" indeed!

An additional strength of the book is Coll's knack for thumbnail portraits of the participants. Most memorable are his word pictures of two CIA directors: the religiously driven cold warrior William Casey and the consummate organization man George Tenet. Also well done are his portraits of Afghan warriors like the unlucky Ahmed Shah Massoud (whose assassination closes the book) and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Osama bin Laden himself, though dutifully described, remains necessarily an offstage influence rather than a full-bodied presence. Both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia come off in Coll's pages as unreliable allies, to the point of being deceitful in their dealings with the U.S.

GHOST WARS is not beach reading by any means, but those who have the patience to get through it will emerge well informed indeed. Of course, everything changed on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. Can a second volume be far behind?

--- Reviewed by Robert Finn

Timothy Garton Ash's book the file was very provocative and interesting. I thoroughly enjoyed reading the personal experience of one man who happened to be in East Berlin before unification and then was able to see his file afterwards. However, i am a bit disillusioned. The story interests me but Garton Ash really doesn't say anything! I am disappointed that he so poignantly and blatantly pokes at communism and a totalitarian state. And yet he does not back it up. The book is good under the premise of democracy good, communism bad. It feels like he is just pooling for support. And nobody knew the wall was going to "fall" when it did. I know of many professors who were writing books critiquing communism who had to throw out their text because of the abrupt fall of communism. I'm wondering if this book is just a way to cash in an unexpected event. I am dissappointed. Maybe i just don't know enough of Garton Ash but if this is the case, i should not have to feel the need to know his history before reading the book. The book had some good points and kept me entertained but on the whole didn't do anything for me. Peace.

I came across this book by accident just searching for books about East Germany on Amazon.com. On a personal note, I myself immigrated from the USA to the DDR (Home of my fathers family) in 1982 and lived there until 1987 when I was expelled for political reasons. This book told of many things I personally experienced, confirmed many things I had long suspected and informed me of many things I never knew.
It is an excellent, accurate look at a country and a system that have passed into oblivion but left many scars on many people.

I did not read this book for the reasons I ended up enjoying it.

Timothy Garton Ash's delving into his Stasi file is a peek into the madness and organized obsurdity of the East German State. The reader is presented with a wonderful feel for what it was like to live in East Berlin as well as the motives and workings of both Stasi IMs and the Federal Authority which now oversees the administration of the Stasi files.

On another level it is a book about a middle aged man looking back on his Romantic youth, on a man he can not remember well, and sees again through the eyes of the slightly paranoid and slightly inaccurate secret police.

In the end though, this is a frightening book that leaves the reader wondering what are in the secret intelligence files of the Western style democracies.

Let me begin by saying that I'm no fan of the late J. Edgar Hoover. His refusal for many years to investigate both organized crime and civil rights violations amounted to pure dereliction of duty and his persecution of anyone whose political views differed from his own was tyrannical and downright un-American (a label that would have shocked Hoover). Still, I'll even give the devil his due and it must be admitted, as more balanced biographies, such as Gentry's and Powers', have observed, that Hoover did largely create the FBI, one of the greatest law enforcement agencies in the world, and also did much to professionalize law enforcement and bring it into the 20th Century. That's not the problem I have with this book. It's a cheap shot, designed mainly to prove that Hoover was a closet homosexual and transvestite being blackmailed into submission by the Mob. This may or may not be the case--I've long suspected Hoover was a fag but in the absence of proof have always been inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt--but Summers' "evidence," consisting mostly of gossip and hearsay, is unconvincing. It's also difficult to believe that Hoover, whatever his vices or other faults, could have been stupid enough to place himself in a compromising position. Summers' sources speak of photos showing Hoover and Clyde Tolson engaged in homosexual acts but no such pictures have ever turned up. The whole theory is spurious. If the Mob was blackmailing Hoover into submission, then how did the Kennedys force Hoover to finally move against organized crime in the early '60's? Moreover, while even the FBI admits that the momentum of its anti-Mob drive slowed down after JFK's assassination, it never really ended either. The writing style is unimpressive (especially the author's childish and annoying attempt to personalize the Director by referring to him throughout as "Edgar"), the source notes are inadequate, and the whole product leaves much to be desired. As to the quality of the alleged research, any author who takes Jay Robert Nash's silly and long disproven theory of Dillinger's survival seriously can't really be said to have done his homework. This is shoddy journalism at its absolute worst.

This book is important to read in the post-9/11 era. At a time when every cable-news pundit is crying out for Congress to take the shackles off the FBI, it is good to remember why Congress slapped those shackles on in the first place.

The author makes a pretty strong case that J. Edgar Hoover was a thoroughly corrupt, racist, mentally unbalanced megolomaniac who egregiously abused his powers for financial and political gain. I'm skeptical of some of the author's wilder allegations -- for example, a suggestion that Richard Nixon may have had Hoover killed by poisoning his toothpaste. However, many of the abuses of Hoover's FBI were well-documented in Congressional investigations in the 1970's: the secret files; the unfettered use of wiretaps, bugs, infiltration, warrantless searches and seizures (i.e., burglaries), and other methods of surveillance, all done without any judicial oversight and often without any legitimate law enforcement purpose; harassing Vietnam War protestors, people in the Civil Rights movement, suspected "Communists," and other political "enemies."

One of the book's main points is that Hoover kept himself in power for so many years -- despite evident corruption and manifest incompetence -- by blackmailing successive presidents with the dirt he had gathered on their private lives. Although largely speculative, the possibility does seem to be frighteningly plausible. Other allegations that appear to be supported by fairly good circumstantial evidence include Hoover's ties to the Mafia and his sexual hypocrisy.

I'm giving the book only 4 stars because the author's breathless, tabloid style makes it difficult to really sort out established facts from mere rumor, innuendo and hearsay. Still, it is a very entertaining and thought-provoking read.

Britisher Anthony Summers is a crack researcher who was seasoned in the finest documentary atmosphere available, that of the legendary BBC. This book is every bit as fascinating as Summers's work on Richard Nixon. While the Nixon book was entitled "The Arrogance of Power," this work on the life and times of controversial FBI director J. Edgar Hoover could well be titled "The Abuse of Power."

Summers reveals how Hoover was a man in between who was trapped by the same method he used to compromise and place in fear presidents and members of Congress. A tenacious investigator, he turned his agent-bloodhounds loose on men in power, gaining enough information to compromise them. The moment an influential House or Senate member would complain about FBI abuse, he would receive a call from Hoover informing of information he held. At the same time, Hoover was in turn compromised by what the Mafia held on him. Hoover, an outwardly homophobic director who stated bluntly that he did not anyone of that persuasion working in his Bureau, had a homosexual life he attempted to keep secret. Frank Costello and other Mafia chieftains let him know that if he threatened their domain they had important information they would use against him.

Another fascinating element of Summers's book is his detailed revelations about Hoover's influence with U.S. presidents. He was said to have influenced John F. Kennedy's choice of Lyndon Johnson for his running mate in 1960 because Hoover held potentially damaging evidence on Kennedy's womanizing, which would have destroyed efforts to paint the Massachusetts senator as a loyal family man in the hard-fought 1960 campaign against Richard Nixon. Nixon was a politician who also had reason to fear Hoover. He was never willing to replace him for that reason, despite an expressed preference to do so.

This is a book that takes the readers to the highest portals of power and uncovers many secrets. Hoover had a profound influence on American politics from the thirties until his death in 1972.

EDIT: I'm putting my review below on hold as I've realized I've got an original version of the book- 2 prints out of date! Will read newest version and re-review. So take with a grain of salt. Ross
-------------------------------------------
This book is a nice easy read, and simple to work through. However, but having been in radio (marketing & promotions director, years in sales, my own small agency) since 1992, I thought her knowledge of the radio format was somewhat limited...this made me think that perhaps some of the other areas that I'm not as knowledgeable about (outdoor, direct mail) she might be limited as well.
Kathy states that there are only 2 tried and true ways to buying radio, either tactical or strategic, with schedules of 5x a week or up to 24x a week. Well, these may work, (or have worked in the past), but they are fairly old methods of radio advertising. She mentions TAP and :30 commercials, things you just don't see much of anymore.
She makes no mention of OES (Optimum Effective Schedules) or the importance of frequency or other methods (and better I might add) that have come along in the last few years. It's a changing medium, and methods should change also. So I'd just take the radio part as one general read on how to buy radio, certainly not the only way to buy!

I am the owner of a small business, having undertaken this after having retired from government work after many years. With a career background in government, I hardly brought advertising skills to my new venture. Like many other persons new to starting a small business, I probably have made some assumptions about where my sales can be based upon my personal (and uninformed) beliefs. In a format that is inviting to the beginner such as myself, this book has enlightened me as to nuances and strategies of advertising which I simply could not have conceptualized on my own. I am thus now in the position to make some rational and better - informed decisions with regard to advertising my retail operation. Good book !

My eyes are now open. I am a small business owner and needed some finacially sound ways to build my business and had no idea where to start. I felt like she knew exactly what I was feeling regarding advertising and getting the best for my budget.
I want to say thank you again for the book and your willingness to share.

If you want some casual reading from a very leftist author, this is the book for you. However, if you are a rational thinking American, toss this one in the fire. Mr. Zepezauer is a self-proclaimed liberal, as is evident in ALL of his works, who has a hard time portraying even a little bit of the other side of the story. Yes, the CIA has made mistakes, but it must be acknowledged that over 80% of the CIA's past operations are still classified. As a result, many of the good things the Agency has done are not known or not reported (this is the classic media case of the negative being a better story than the positive; want proof, watch the news and observe how many more murders and crimes receive attention than good acts do). Additionally, many of the facts, such as throwing people out of helicopters in Vietnam, are partly true. In this case, there was a person thrown out of a helicopter, but it was a dummy, set up to look like an enemy soldier. This entire setup, involving a Huey with a dummy and another Huey with the captured enemy soldier, was nothing more than an elaborate interrogation technique. The captured enemy soldier is led to believe that his captors are willing to kill him if he is unwilling to give information (this technique very seldomly failed to achieve it's intended results). There are other falsities, but I don't have enough room to list them. So in conclusion, for a simple, waste-your-time read, get this book from the library, but in no way take it for the absolute authority on the subject.

This is another important contribution to the ongoing critic of imperialist culture that many mistaking think ended at the start of the twentieth century. In the vein of Chomsky, Vidal and Jardine, "Real Story Series" pamphlets, Zepezauer gives a quick overview of, perhaps, one of the most dishonorable ongoing chapters of US history. This book is not meant to go into a detailed analysis' of CIA activities, but rather introduce the nefarious activities of this powerful agency to the public. Within this book one will be introduced to the CIA's involvement in the overthrow of democratic governments all over the world. From Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador and the repeted attempts to bring about the downfall of Castro in our hemisphere, to the Phillipines, Vietnam, Greece, and into Africa, the reader introduced to what could be called the most well financed terrorist organization in the world. This book is only an introduction, as I said, and if one is interested in a more in- depth look at the CIA, check out "Killing Hope" by William Blum. All in all this book is a very good place begin in any investigation of the CIA's activities, especially for those not familar with the subject.

Many books attempt to include more detail on whatever historical situation they are attempting to *cover*. I know that disinformation is a large part of any secret circus stunt, and everything that happens at a circus might be more convincing than any of the parts of the world that allegedly existed before and after the momentous events that are summarized on the back cover of this book as times when the C.I.A. "participated in the assassinations of . . . literally millions of ordinary people in Indonesia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Vietnam, East Timor and many other countries." I've been in one of those countries on a U.S. government project that was not quite secret enough to suit some people, and it seemed like the C.I.A. was there long before I was, and even William Colby couldn't convince LBJ that hundreds of thousands of American troops shooting people there might get into the newspapers more often than he would like. I like reading this book on places I have never been, like Germany, whose famous Hitler employed General Reinhard Gehlen as "Hitler's intelligence chief for the Eastern front" (p. 6) before he had the opportunity to help form the C.I.A. pursuant to a "secret treaty, his spy organization--which came to be called the Gehlen Org--would work for, and be funded by, the US until a new German government came to power." (p. 6). I have searched for other information on the web about Reinhard Gehlen, which corresponds so well to the information in this book, that it is possible that the secret treaty also required Gehlen to teach the C.I.A. everything it knows.

Hit number 38: Crooked Banks, on BCCI, which had a London branch that was shut down by British bank examiners in 1991, managed loosely "Roughly $20 billion of BCCI's assets remain unaccouted for," though "Before collapsing, BCCI managed to facilitate a host of CIA covert operations, notably George Bush's efforts to pump weapons to Saddam Hussein's Iraq (see Hit #40) and Edwin Wilson's `unauthorized' arming of Libya (see Hit #30)." (p. 81). Some people might still believe that BCCI was a Pakastani bank, and Mark Zepezauer seems to be dubiously relying on a rumor that it was the work of "Director Richard Helms in particular, actually started the bank, and that it `wasn't a Pakistani bank at all.'" (pp. 80-81)

This is the first book I've read by Margaret Truman and I had high hopes. The book did not live up to those hopes. I found the book easy to put down and forget, the plot and characters didn't hold my interest and....kiss of death....the ending didn't make my heart race or send even a single chill down my spine. When I read a good book, I tend to get lost in that book - I forget that I'm READING a book. I never got that feeling with this book. I was always just reading.

Maybe I've come to expect too much since devouring Michael Connelly, Nelson DeMille and David Baldacci.

The best I can say is that it wasn't a totally boring read, just mediocre.

This book is just the thing for a long plane flight, or a series of quiet evenings at home. Its strongest point is excellent plotting. The character development and scene-setting seemed a bit thin to me. Unlike the Smiley series by LeCarre, the writing seems much more commercial -- and it is hard to really feel (and intensely care about) the characters. (There are the usual romantic/sexual/love interests stirred in, but they seem superficial, reflecting Collette Cahill's shallow personality.) On the other hand, Truman's characters outshine Ludlum's stickmen; hers seem like real people (though just acquaintances, not friends). On excellent attribute of 'Murder in the CIA' is that one doesn't know who the 'bad guys' and the 'goods guys' are until just before the end of the tale. I would strongly suggest that readers who don't want to lose track of everyone really should keep a pad to jot down the names of each of the characters. This 303-page potboiler brings in quite a large cast, and many of them are important to the plot. This book was written during the Cold War, and younger readers may have some trouble connecting with the anti-Communist motivations behind a lot of the action. Also some of the devices (post-hypnotic recollections, for example) seem both contrived and dated. Things have changed a lot since 1987. --- In short, 'Murder in the CIA' is not great literature, but it is a fun read.

This was my first read in the Capitol Crimes Series, and it won't be my last. While being an easy read, it wasn't too easy that I became bored and lost interest. The main character was someone I could relate to, and have sympathy for . It was very surprising who were the good guys and who were the bad guys. This is a good escape book, better than TV in my opinion.

Gates had access to some of the most fascinating characters in the history of the Cold War. His observations are incisive and revealing about many of these personalities; however, his book often reads like one might imagine a CIA memo reads, rather dry. The book provides feedback on several important historical instances but it does not go into much depth on any. I do not recommend it as a book used to learn the history of that era. Instead I would read it to gain a further understanding of what went on behind the scenes.
In general, I find Gates to be an interesting character himself. He has some hilarious anecdotes about life in the CIA. Such as when he is walking up the steps of Air Force One and turns to flip off several of the top officials (I think it was) in Romania after they botch his passport. In addition to a often dry sense of humor he also seems to have a great deal of character and integrity.

Mr Gates' background in writing intelligence analysis is very apparent in his book, which covers the role of intelligence on policy and the figures that carried out the policy, from President Nixon to Bush Sr. Stylistically, ideas are introduced, expanded upon, and brought back together in sum and reflection in efficient essay form, yet in, one senses, what epitomizes intelligence directorate reporting at Langley. As such the recounting can be understandably dry (albeit with ready humor), but these ARE renderings of historical events; when I was patient, I found that his clarity and humility make the work readable and insightful. The DC cocktail crowd no doubt received ample fuel from Mr Gates' (decidedly fair) renderings of George Schultz and William Casey, both of whom Mr Gates spent much time with during the Reagan years. Other character sketches elucidate and emphasize Mr Gates' opinions about other high-ranking individuals in the various administrations, but his everyman-ish voice is an able mediator among the personalities.

The retelling of some events where Mr Gates plays up his role or access get a bit tedious; for example, when he and Larry Eagleburger hit the European circuit to sell arms reductions (somewhat to the effect of "we went to London, then Rome, then Bonn, then Amsterdam")-likewise, when Mr Gates would accompany other advisers and President Bush to Kennebunkport, and almost any private meetings Mr Gates would have with President Bush.

Mr Gates' own conservative bent comes through in several places, but most succinctly in his concluding remarks about the Soviet Union's demise. Here Mr Gates writes of a Soviet role in terrorist activity, yet a US role in aiding freedom fighters, which only extends a pervasive double standard in US government foreign policy. Of course Mr Gates' worked on a day-to-day basis to limit the Soviets' opportunities, and of course US hegemony is all the greater for it, but zeal can sometimes be confused for rationale: certainly the US has carried out its own "terrorist" activities, many through the CIA itself, and recent uncoverings of Kissinger's strong hand in Latin America are evidence of more glib and (many believe) illegal workings by the US executive branch.

Mr Gates has personally intrigued me since I read an article on him around the time of his confirmation as DCI in 1991. The article told of his early job as a bus driver, teaching Russian phrases to community riders, and his reference to many of the Easterners among the DC establishment ranks as "guys with last names as first names." Such an endearing portrait of himself is difficult to find in his narrative and made me a bit disappointed he didn't talk more about graduate school and Russian studies years, especially as the Sovietology schools were evolving in the 1960s, yet such topics would admittedly digress from the book's theme.

Aside from its occasional name-dropping and some opportune flag waving, Mr Gates' memoir is evenly told and offers a straightforward, insider view of executive policy during pivotal moments between 1970 and 1992. It is also well written, with helpful and sufficient background for the events recounted. I would look forward to reading anything he further publishes, especially concerning the direction or affairs of Russia and its former Soviet neighbors.

Excellent account of what really goes on from the inside of the govt. They say that truth is better than fiction. This is true in a big way in this book. You will recall many of the events in not too distant history. They come alive in this book and history makes more sense. Intense reading - be sure to underline the names to keep track of the huge cast of characters. A big Aggie thumb's up for this one!

This book is very well to dress for the concept ¡§Disruption¡¨ and how does it works. There are many examples, a lot of are from the author¡¦s own company BDDP, which are very useful for explain the concepts. Also he attaches the pictures of the related advertisement, which makes it easy to understand. And the author introduces step by step, from the basic knowledge of the real advertising world, background knowledge, and then gets into the Disruption. Even in the practice chapter, he integrates the Management skills (Planner), Knowledge Management (Disruption World Bank) which is very useful and clear for readers to apply the strategy.

It even talks about how to use Disruption in the Information Age, which creative department can take advantage from advance technology to interact, communicate and provoke inspiration. Also it would help to store, present ideas, for instance, CD-Rom. But somehow, it is kind of burdensome to make it to a whole chapter.

However, some of the concepts are too similar and vague that they seems only created for the book. And some examples are used to explain different concepts, which may result some confusion. For example, Starbucks Coffee was used to explain Additions of Business Discontinuities, but also used to explain Viewpoint in the Vision chapter, which are different concepts. I think it is becuase this concept of Disruption only came from 2 articles printed on Wall Street Journal and La Fegaro, and the effort to expand it into a book centainly decreased its power.

But over all, this book is well written and very interesting to read, you couldn¡¦t put it down after you started it. I had already purchased the sequel of it, "Beyond Disruption", I hope there will be some latest view points and maybe solutions for some problems occered in the market after this book.

There are a few great truths here spread out among a good bit of superfluous material, but the truths are worthy of a read. The essential gem of the book is properly communicated in the title. If you want to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs. The trick is knowing when to take a risk and then managing that risk to achieve a desirable outcome. That is the heart of the book.

Dru often digresses into lengthy asides and stories that don't always illustrate or relate to her point. For example, I now know more than I care to know about her views on the differences between the American and European consumer. (Frankly she contradicts herself here.) Naturally there are cultural nuances that must be taken into account with most any marketing assignment, but having said that, she should have moved on and made that the subject of another book.

The important thing, in marketing and in business, is to sell product. No one cares much about winning awards, except for the creative and art directors. In the end, the consumer votes with his dollar, yen, peso or euro. That's the award that really counts, and toward that end, a little 'disruption' is a good thing!

If you ask me, this book belongs right up there with "Positioning" as one of the all time must-reads, not only for marketers and advertising people, but really for anyone in business. And while it was published in the mid-90s, it couldn't be more relevant today. At heart, what Mr. Dru says (and then supports with many examples) is that the only path to genuine business success is to fly in the face of conventional thinking.

Mr. Dru's background is as the leader of a large advertising agency; so many of his examples come from this area. However, as he points out, taking the safe route in almost any business endeavor-product development, business process design or marketing communications-is often the most dangerous course. Because any business activity that fails to disrupt, i.e. break with the norm, is unlikely to attract much attention (or business). Which, at a time when revenue and earnings growth is stagnant for most firms, and the tools of financial engineering all but exhausted, would seem to point to this new "best practice". Read this book and then inject a massive amount of disruption into the thinking that powers your enterprise.

I suppose that I expected more interesting data in this book by Mr. MacCabee and although we read about good sightings by credible people and letters by F.B.I. and the Air Force, they are not that "one" we are looking for. In a nutshell, Bruce relates many of the events that happened during the 50's and 60's, tells of the "Blue Book" organization , the "Sign" and "Grudge" groups set up to investigate the UFO reports but after reading the book one thing stands out: The men in charge knew that the UFOs were not from any place on Earth and could only be from Outer Space but the Air Force whose job it was and is to protect us from all aerial forces...would NOT accept this solution.

It seems that a "think tank" advised the United States Government several years ago to never admit that the UFOs were from another world, so that seems to be the way it will be... untill an Alien spacecraft lands on the White House.

The facts are all there - the point made - the authorities have known for a long time. Yet more compounding evidence that we should all be aware of - UFO's are real, they are here and Bruce takes us through the evidence rather convincingly. Read it

When trying to choose a book about UFOs, you may not know how to avoid the flaky ones. This is a thoroughly researched and well written book, and a must-read for anyone beyond the initial stages of reading on UFOs. Bruce Maccabee is a solid, methodical investigator with years of background in UFO studies.

This book is not about abductions; it does not engage in any far out speculation. It is about evidence of government agencies' involvement of UFO matters over several decades--evidence gathered straight out of government files, mostly from FBI and Air Force Intelligence files, but also from the files of other agencies.