Agencies

Either way i found i couldn't relate. What little i knew about the CIA or specific missions (e.g., TPAJAX, Gautamala, etc.) was either wholly inaccurate, blandly whitewashed, or both! The authors have done an admirable job of what one may say is googlizing research (and a poor one at that) and compiling it all into what may vaguely be called a book.

With poor-quality and error-prone books such as this, esp. one on a topic of much import to world affairs of the past half century, one wonders if the cycle of idiocy isn't perpetuated ad infinitum.

I bought this book for one specific reason: To learn how CIA agents are trained. There was almost NOTHING about CIA training. Aside from that, the book is good. I give it 2 and a half stars.

a collection of boring, and already known, facts.

As I said, if you are a scholar of international law, don't expect to find anything in this book that you don't know already.

The title of the book has been lifted right out of Plumtree's Book in Canada "Beyond the Bottom Line" concerning management practice in the Canadian Public Service - shame on you. All-be-it the book here isn't bad.

I detest the conduct of Bill Clinton. I disliked some things about this book. Primarily, that the author threw a ton of stuff against the wall, to see how much of it would stick. In doing so, some does, and a lot doesn't. Therein lies the problem: making accusations which lack substantiation or a volume of compelling circumstantial evidence, helps rather than hinders the Clintons. The book relies too much on rumor and innuendo to truly succeed. I have gained much better information and enjoyment from the Slick Willie books, the Year of the Rat book, Dave Marrannis First In His Class, No Surprises, and even The Clinton Chronicles book. The book's redeeming value is that you will read some things you probably haven't before, and a few of them have credible facts and evidence. These are in the minority, however.

Actually, I couldn't finish the book. I started several chapters, but finally put it down in disgust. Where was the editor at Yale Press? The writing is terrible, more acceptable from a high school freshman than from a professor of history. My ex-wife is an instructor in English and composition, and I'm sure she would appreciate this book as a gift for its collection of bad examples. My advice - browse before you buy.

You pick up this book hoping, and even expecting, that something riveting will meet you inside. But nothing does. Just a heavy dose of reporting who Archie meets, where, and when. This must be how intelligence reports read.

But it was better for Archie, as the extra contemplative son of TR, to do something cool with his life. I guess he did play a role in the Iranian activities of the CIA having something to do with the Shah. Which had to be more interesting than hanging around Oyster Bay reenacting scenes from his childhood.

It's just that this report of what he did, well, is just not that interesting to read. I keep it on a certain shelf in a certain place in Florida. I'll let you know if it hits me differently in the future.

This book, written some years ago by an old friend and mentor, now deceased, was a disappointment. Bob Bathurst used to teach that the Russians needed to be understood in a cultural way so that we could understand the Soviets strategically. But here he argues that American and Russian cultural "coding" prevented either side from really understanding the other, and in fact allowed each side to create the enemy in the other. In short, a relativistic view of the Cold War. The author displays an impressive understanding of the glories and idiosyncracies of Russian culture--except for the Orthodox Church, which he seems to misunderstand completely--but his view of American culture is wholly negative. For example, he laments that American culture, being "oriented to the present" and subject to rapid "personnel turnover," lacks the sort of "institutional memory" the Russians have. Well, yes, democratic elections do that.

I purchased this book mainly for the CD test. Too bad for me that nowhere in the reviews does it mention that it can't be used in a Mac! I don't really care for the format of the questions, either - I've purchased much better review guides; especially the CLS Review by Harr (of course, you can't use it's floppy in a Mac, either - that's why I wasted my money on another book)

At first, I was afraid of agency & partnership, then later I realized that these subjects are covered already in torts and corporations courses. This lecture series is long even though the material is quite simple. I have two problems with this product. There are four tapes on agency and partnership, respectively. First, for each subject the professor spend three tapes telling the rules and then the last tape saying, "Okay, now here are the rules from the new Restatement." They should have said the most updated rules from the start. Second, (and please forgive the age-ism here), the back cover shows the Munch is an older gentleman. When you listen to the tapes, you will learn that he has an old man's voice. Whereas other tapes have younger people cracking jokes because they know many of these law subjects are tedious, here you have the kind of old professor that will make you go to sleep. Again, please forgive the unintended courseness of that observation. But honestly, his voice will be an impediment to listening to this series.

Insightless read for even current civilian, military intelligence or academia. All of the authors are FORMER intelligence officials, and as the saying goes-even if you reshuffel a deck of card, the same cards, or in this case, the same thoughts will remain. This book speaks out for only one clear reform-new blood in the United States and Allied Nations Intelligence Services. Can the authors all say- "original thought"? I think not.

Roy and Ernie-professors of intelligence think the Cold War is raging, and given the sorry refocus they provide for even the Intelligence professional, this book is not going to help anyone in understanding how the U.S. Intel Services can best redistribute there efforts.

Don't try this one unless you are a student of the Intelligence process. And, if you are under 50 with your brain one line, you will quickly see these Cold Warriors sre simply trying to reinvent theselves. While the Soviet Dragon was slain at the end of the Cold War, the authors claim the rather harmless snakes in the grass are just that. Enter Saddam. These snakes have grown legs and are dangerous. Fossil-write will note solve current national security problems.

I stumbled across the reviews of this book by chance, and was quite stunned to see what almost appears to be an orchestrated trashing of what I regard as a useful barometer of informed professional opinion.

Yes, some of the authors and some of the views of the authors are relatively conventional, but by and large I am not only quite pleased to have this book in my library, I find that the thoughts of Jennifer Sims, Douglas MacEachin, and Robert Kohler, and Britt Snider, to name just four--I like the others as well--are as essential a starting point for reform as the more radical ideas of myself, Senator Shelby, Senator Rudman, or others.

Bottom line: Roy Godson and these people have been troubled by intelligence ineffectiveness, and have done more than most to publish in this arena, than anyone else I know. This book is not the end all, but it is a vital historical reference point for any serious professional. I would not reprint it, but I would certainly recommend it as a used book acquisition, and I hope that a new set of authors comes together to provide a 21st Century "second look" in the aftermath of 9-11. In the meantime, I would point folks toward Godson's "Dirty Tricks or Trump Cards," Allen's "None So Blind," and Zegart's "Flawed by Design," inter alia. If you want a list of my top 20 recommended books, send me an email.