Rating: 
Summary: PLEASE read this book if you are undecided or confused...
Review: ...about who was right or wrong in the Lewinsky affair and why it matters. I read this book in just a couple of days. I watched the whole Lewinsky imbroglio with strange fascination like everyone else. As a conservative, I have to admit I was quick to "side" with the Independent Counsel. And this book, although written from an apolitical standpoint, buttressed my opinion in this sense: that history will record the sad but true fact that Ken Starr unflinchingly, and to his own peril, sought truth and justice at almost every single step of the way in this investigation. Equally, it is true that Clinton unflinchingly, and to his own peril, sought to AVOID truth and justice at almost every single step of the way in this investigation. Both Starr's and Clinton's reputations are permanently tarnished. But Starr's tarnishing is undeserved and will improve as time goes on. Clinton's reputation is, deservedly, unsalvagable. This book reads almost like you're watching a gripping docu-drama unfold before your eyes. It is excellent history, excellent reporting, and unrivaled for it's ability to wring information from both the OIC and White House. Thus far, if you are going to read one book about this sordid American episode, this is the one!An explanatory note: this book touches, but does not focus to any degree, on the media's role in this and also the impeachment proceedings. It's primary focus, however, is the inner machinations of the OIC and the White House from the time of Linda Tripp's bombshell until Starr's appearance before the House Judiciary Committee. For in depth coverage of the media, impeachment, etc aspects of this case, go elsewhere.
Rating:
Summary: History meets readability
Review: As a history buff and a person who just oogled over the entire impeachment process (and who lost several bets concerning its outcome) I was anxious to read the books on the subject as they came out. Over the next 50 years (If I live that long) I expect to read many from all viewpoints not to mention history textbooks, which I collect. I suspect that I won't enjoy any of them as much as I enjoyed this one. This book is more that just about a historical event. It is, much like Mr. Shippers SELLOUT a book about right vs wrong, about principle. Unlike Mr. Shippers effort (which I enjoyed) this book flows. We see Starr and his staff, going forward, dodging and weaving 'round the obsticles put in their path by the White House and their friends. The story winds and keeps even one who knows the story in anticipation. The climax of the book Starr's appearance before the judiciary invokes all of the Mr. Smith Goes to Washington images that a person like me who should be more jaded lives for. It is a powerful testament to doing what you believe is right. It works as history, it works as storytelling and it most important it works by displaying all that is right about this country in the midst of all that is wrong.
Rating:
Summary: History meets readability
Review: As a history buff and a person who just oogled over the entire impeachment process (and who lost several bets concerning its outcome) I was anxious to read the books on the subject as they came out. Over the next 50 years (If I live that long) I expect to read many from all viewpoints not to mention history textbooks, which I collect. I suspect that I won't enjoy any of them as much as I enjoyed this one. This book is more that just about a historical event. It is, much like Mr. Shippers SELLOUT a book about right vs wrong, about principle. Unlike Mr. Shippers effort (which I enjoyed) this book flows. We see Starr and his staff, going forward, dodging and weaving 'round the obsticles put in their path by the White House and their friends. The story winds and keeps even one who knows the story in anticipation. The climax of the book Starr's appearance before the judiciary invokes all of the Mr. Smith Goes to Washington images that a person like me who should be more jaded lives for. It is a powerful testament to doing what you believe is right. It works as history, it works as storytelling and it most important it works by displaying all that is right about this country in the midst of all that is wrong.
Rating: 
Summary: An Easy Read, but More Balance Needed
Review: As an avid reader of history, but only a now-and-then reader of journalistic commentary/history, I found many details of what happened and why, but few important new details. It was very easy to read, and considering the number of names of key people in the investigation, the authors did and excellent job of keeping us informed of who was who. My first complaint is that the Clinton/White House side was given only a small percentage of the coverage in the book with the remainder going to the Starr Investigation. Of course the book was about the Starr investigation first and foremost, but the White House motivations and actions were not well explained, only, I presume, because the authors did not have access to them. The details in the thinking and conclusions of the Starr side were good and complete--not so the other side. My second and final complaint is that the basic thesis of the book that Starr was naive and single-minded in his approach does not pass muster. Starr showed his adroit skills throughout the process, as well as some of his blunders. Making him out to be naive is to say that he was innocent to a fault--a virute taken to an extreme became his vice. Clinton's side was never given such a look--they were always portrayed as mean-spirited and near-unethical--in other words, bad from the get-go. Such overarching characterizations take away from the larger message of the book.
Rating:
Summary: An Easy Read, but More Balance Needed
Review: As an avid reader of history, but only a now-and-then reader of journalistic commentary/history, I found many details of what happened and why, but few important new details. It was very easy to read, and considering the number of names of key people in the investigation, the authors did and excellent job of keeping us informed of who was who. My first complaint is that the Clinton/White House side was given only a small percentage of the coverage in the book with the remainder going to the Starr Investigation. Of course the book was about the Starr investigation first and foremost, but the White House motivations and actions were not well explained, only, I presume, because the authors did not have access to them. The details in the thinking and conclusions of the Starr side were good and complete--not so the other side. My second and final complaint is that the basic thesis of the book that Starr was naive and single-minded in his approach does not pass muster. Starr showed his adroit skills throughout the process, as well as some of his blunders. Making him out to be naive is to say that he was innocent to a fault--a virute taken to an extreme became his vice. Clinton's side was never given such a look--they were always portrayed as mean-spirited and near-unethical--in other words, bad from the get-go. Such overarching characterizations take away from the larger message of the book.
Rating:
Summary: Informative and Enlightening
Review: From the first time I saw this book, I knew I wanted to read it. I wanted the inside story, something other than what the headlines told through the impeachment saga. This book fulfilled those expectations. As a stay at home mom, I had the time to give to watching the impeachment unfold. I took in as much information as I possibly could as it happened. Even so, there was information in this book that never reached the evening news or newspapers, so I found out some things I never knew before. Some have complained that this book gave more of the Independent Council's perspective rather than that of the White House. To those with such a complaint, I would say, note the title and cover of the book. It is about Ken Starr, not Bill Clinton. Naturally, his perspective is going to be more prominent than that of the White House. If that surprises you, I can't imagine why. Even though the book is about Ken Starr, it does not present him from a biased perspective, as near as I can gather. I am a conservative, so it is possible that I could have missed something, but it seemed to me well balanced. You got a clear picture of Starr (and other's in his office) for his strengths AND his weaknesses. You can't help but wonder if perhaps some of those flaws had not been a part of the story, maybe the outcome would have been different. It is a worthwhile read, for those who want to catch up with what happened in the Monica Lewinsky situation as well as those who soaked up every detail as it happened. There is new information there for everyone.
Rating:
Summary: Informative and Enlightening
Review: From the first time I saw this book, I knew I wanted to read it. I wanted the inside story, something other than what the headlines told through the impeachment saga. This book fulfilled those expectations. As a stay at home mom, I had the time to give to watching the impeachment unfold. I took in as much information as I possibly could as it happened. Even so, there was information in this book that never reached the evening news or newspapers, so I found out some things I never knew before. Some have complained that this book gave more of the Independent Council's perspective rather than that of the White House. To those with such a complaint, I would say, note the title and cover of the book. It is about Ken Starr, not Bill Clinton. Naturally, his perspective is going to be more prominent than that of the White House. If that surprises you, I can't imagine why. Even though the book is about Ken Starr, it does not present him from a biased perspective, as near as I can gather. I am a conservative, so it is possible that I could have missed something, but it seemed to me well balanced. You got a clear picture of Starr (and other's in his office) for his strengths AND his weaknesses. You can't help but wonder if perhaps some of those flaws had not been a part of the story, maybe the outcome would have been different. It is a worthwhile read, for those who want to catch up with what happened in the Monica Lewinsky situation as well as those who soaked up every detail as it happened. There is new information there for everyone.
Rating:
Summary: Kinda Disappointing
Review: I can't put my finger on it, but I was left with a dissatisfied feeling after reading this book. They do a fine job of telling what happened from Ken Starr's perspective, but too often I was overwhelmed by the minutae of what they were discussing. While far less polemical than the other takes on L'Affaire Lewinski, I just didn't get excited reading this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Merely a disguised effort at advocacy
Review: I just finished reading the Hunting of the President by Conanson and Lyon, and Truth at Any Cost. These books provide an instructive contrast. Thus, while Hunting provides copious footnotes for factual assertions, Truth far too often presents the judgments, feelings, assessments and views of Starr and his staff in subtle substitution for attributed facts and as though those statements were the complete truth and not worthy of further examination. This fault becomes more clear when combined with the artful and disingenuous sorting and choice of facts to support its assertions. Some readers have expressed approval of the discussion of legal stategy presented by Truth and there certainly is plenty of discussion of these subjects which can serve to inform. But what a critical comparision of Hunting and Truth reveals is how an advocate's ordering of facts, use of conclusions in lieu of facts and reference to subjective views, judgments etc. as facts can present the distorted picture sought only by an advocate. Happily enough, in the context of appellate advocacy, such biased presentation of a factual or legal case is quickly dispelled by reply briefs of one's opponent before an appellate tribunal. As an example of the difficulty with the facts presented in support of the author's presentation is that involving David Hale. Mr. Hale's statement are presented at one point to debunk critics of the Staff investigation. Yet, as Hunting points out, Hale has a long history of lying about anything involving Clinton, to say nothing of stealing, all of which Truth ignores. Lastly, the book goes to on at length to justify Starr's expenditure of public funds to uncover Clinton's sexual behavior and lies about that. However, one striking thing to any civil litigator must be the number of times perjury is clear in an ordinary civil proceeding, and yet there is complete disinterest from prosecutorial authorities. I suggest that perjury is generally considered worthy of prosecution in the abstract by our society, but apparently not in the real world when compared against other crimes deemed more damaging to society. Yet when Starr as an independent prosecutor assigned to investigate only Clinton learns of possible future perjury in litigation he previously particpated in as an advocate for Clinton's opponent, that limitation on prosecutorial discretion goes out the window and requires the investment of millions of dollars and countless FBI agents. Clinton's behavior was unseemly. Despite Schmidt's and Weisskopf's efforts to portray Starr otherwise, his actions were also quite unseemly.
Rating:
Summary: Power over truth
Review: So Bill Clinton had his men muscle poor Ken Starr who did a fabulous job exposing this infidel. Clinton was disbarred and impeached but still allowed to finish his term, hand out pardons to criminals, steal furniture from the white house and take the economy right down the toilet. I gues that saying about the golden rule: "the man with gold makes the rules" is very true. Another reason why I am glad that I am no longer a democrat. Or is that democ(rat).
|
