Rating: 
Summary: Afraid of the truth
Review: It is a wonder to me that so many Clinton apologists spam every book that shows him in a negative light. Patterson's book is not pulitzer material, however, it does present an inside view of Whitehouse from a person that was there day in and day out and had very close contact with Clinton. There is some new material here and it is not good. It is interesting to me how individuals such as Patterson are always labeled as "right-wing nuts" because they disagree with or point out shortcomings in the former president.
Rating: 
Summary: Just a bad Book
Review: A thinly veiled, tabloid account from a member of Bill Clinton's militayr staff.
I was thoroughly disapointed in this work. I had high hopes that it would focus on policy, actual decisions etc. Yet, it consistently tried to draw parallels between items like Clinton's cheating at golf is a clear example of why his anti-terrorism policies failed.
Plus, the appendix is longer than the actual book.
Rating: 
Summary: A solid read...
Review: Dereliction of Duty is a brief but telling account of the Clinton Administration's blatant disregard for national security and its contempt for the military in general. The book illustrates the administration's shortcomings in three respects: (1) its dangerous decision to cut manpower by as much as 50% in some areas while simultaneously increasing deployment by 300% through a variety of ill-conceived and ineffective missions, (2) its carefree attitude towards the growing threats of terrorism abroad, and (3) its believe that the military should ultimately serve a "social petri dish" instead of serving as an elite and professional fighting force to protect Americans from foreign threats.Patterson for the most part maintains a professional and matter-of-fact tone throughout most of the book, illustrating the numerous foreign policy blunders that Clinton made while in office whose gravity is only being realized today. The growing threat of terrorism in the 90's was ignored by Clinton, whose response time and again was one of words instead of decisive action. Scandals aside, the administration blundered again and again because of an overwhelming priority on media and public perception instead of long term strategy and results. This book provides fascinating anecdotes coupled with insightful observations that remind us of the many mistakes made in the past. We can only hope that our electorate doesn't again put a man in power who considers national security important only when it raises his standing in opinion polls.
Rating:
Summary: Another brick...
Review: For people who are already familiar with the case against the Clinton administration made by writers like Barbara Olson, Ann Coulter, or Gary Aldrich, "Buzz" Patterson's "Dereliction of Duty" adds few new arguments. He does, however, bring a wealth of corroborative details and an eyewitness account from inside the Clinton White House. This title is really more of an essay than a book-length work. Once you take out the long foreword, three appendices (including a lengthy excerpt from one of Cap Weinberger's books), notes, and index, you've got about 120 pages of widely spaced type. I read most of this on a Memorial Day afternoon, and still had time for yardwork. It would probably have worked as well as a long magazine article, though the fact that it's a book (and a best-selling one, here on Amazon.com) should help give his account the wide distribution it deserves. I suspect that in these post-9/11, post-Iraq War days, Patterson's description of the Clintons', and their administration's, "loathing" of the military will strike the strongest negative response. Worse even then their systematic, deliberate weakening of the military (as Patterson describes it) was the anti-military attitude that pervaded the White House, from the top down (and apparently including even Chelsea). Uniformed officers and men were routinely abused, sneered at, or ignored, used as caddies or go-fers, or treated as some sort of federal jobs corps that could be better spent "doing something" like public works projects or caring for the homeless. Patterson concludes Clinton saw international policy, particularly the deployment of the military, entirely through the lens of domestic politics -- what Patterson calls "CNN diplomacy." Conservatives, especially, are likely to value Patterson's military background and high value he clearly places on duty, honor, and country. As we get further and blessedly further from the Clinton years, more and more titles are likely to appear showing us that dysfunctional administration from the inside out. While Clinton acolytes like Sid Blumethal will continue to put out their massive, unreadable apologias, men and women like Colonel Patterson will give us the quiet but powerful testimony of their own experience. This isn't a big book. And taken on its own, it's arguably not even an important book. But it is another brick in the massive and growing wall of evidence arising around the historical memory of the Clinton administration. And that, certainly, is a very important, and even essential, thing.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent example of what is wrong with our officers corps
Review: This book lacks in so many ways. Patterson's thesis is that Clinton's foreign policy has deteriorated our national security. For such a damning proposition Patterson provides very little evidence. And in places he seems to be entirely disconnected from diplomatic and political reality, such as when he complains that we didn't bomb Iraq because Clinton was watching a golf tournament. What Patterson doesn't mention is any of the diplomatic wrangling that was taking place at the time and the problems such a bombing at that time would have caused. Throughout the book he eliminates evidence that disproves his hypothesis--such an approach is fundamentally dishonest. What is most distressing about the book is the attitudes that he and his fellow officers have toward their commander in chief. It is outright appalling to think that members of our armed forces would treat the elected President with such disdain. Yes, Clinton was mistrustful of the armed forces, but given their attempts to undermine his presidency from the start, I almost can't blame him. A much better book on this subject is David Halberstam's War In A Time of Peace. It too is critical of the Clinton (and Bush I) administration, but does it with more objectivity and research.
Rating:
Summary: Dereliction of Duty
Review: I saw Buzz Patterson on C-Span and felt I really needed to read his personal account of the Clinton White House debacle. After reading his first hand account I was sickened by the Clinton's as human's let alone representatives of our wonderful nation. I hope everyone of voting age reads this book and makes it a point of never again electing a president that has so little regard for the American people. Both Clinton and his wife are amoral at best and true liars in every sense. We can be assured that she will run for her place in the Oval Office and we must take every measure possible to prevent this from happening. Thanks Buzz!
Kay Clark
Flagstaff, Az.
Rating:
Summary: "In Memoriam"
Review: "Uneasy is the head that wears the crown. . . Et tu Brutus?" William Shakespeare Retired U.S. Air Force pilot and military aide to the President, Lieutenant Colonel Robert Patterson's "Dereliction of Duty" (2003) provides a chillingly disturbing and damaging, inside right-wing yellow journalistic account of how the former President Clinton and his administration's "anything-goes" attitude, actions and inactions posed a danger to U.S. national security. Above all, though, it shows blatant disdain for authority, inclusion, and difference in the name of extreme ethnocentrism, tradition, and principles of the U.S. Constitution. And for this, it further mythologizes the ancient Greek concept of "democracy" in this Country to one of "oligarchy" and absolute moral militarism. Does the law make citizens good? If it is not the legal document that will make us good, then, what is it? According to Aristotle, one cannot easily separate the law from morality, for the law is a moral concept connected to virtue. The "middling" arm of [social] justice ensures equal distribution and protection under the letter of the law based on proportionality and our nature. But who am I to question the moral integrity of my leader? What is the relationship between leadership and followership? What is duty? What is morality? How do they relate to one another? And when does it become necessary for a military officer in his official capacity to not only publicly critique the daily life and political decisions of his Commander in Chief and President, but to promote his very own political agenda under the guise of supporting the Constitution and preserving the national security? What does it say about the critic's motivation and his very own character and morality? And what does it say about us as the reading public and what gets published and hits bestseller lists throughout this country? No doubt, while the former President Clinton clearly violated professional ethics, which most certainly had an impact on his administration and the U.S. populace, the Clinton's are not evil people. What is evil is when one imposes his or her view of duty and morality- in a self-centered, glory-seeking, hypocritical sort of way- on others as an attempt to divide and incite discord within an already struggling democracy. And Colonel Patterson is right: the "sacred trust between elected [and appointed] leaders and the American people should never again be violated." One cannot become a good citizen and leader without first becoming a good follower; leadership involves respect, honesty and fairness through equity, girded by strong, solid professional ethics, commonsense and hard choices. The lesson to be learned from this dastardly deed shows how we humans can be cruel to one another and even to our own country when we place self-interest above the interest of the public good. What is most important, then, is to decide how we can best organize, unify, and preserve the United States of America in such a way as to make it a most hospitable and welcoming place for all its citizens and our friends of the world community. It is our responsibility as U.S. citizens to figure out how we can better live in harmony with each other, and no laws or principles can do that - but only character development and virtuous ethical actions.
Rating:
Summary: Not a good book
Review: This book seems like an opportunistic way for this gentleman to supplement his retirement. It isn't journalism, but it might be enjoyed as a work of fiction.
Rating:
Summary: Hatchet Job
Review: Lt.Col Patterson's work is clear only in its total contempt of the Clintons and all who were associated with them. Otherwise, it is a sloppy work shot through with inconsistencies. It is a paean to right wing political philosophy, which philosophy is unfortunately embodied in a significant sector of the military officer corps, which deifies Ronald Regan. The biases are clear, the book is muddled.
Rating:
Summary: Confuses political opinion with fact reporting
Review: Patterson is a conservative and a Republican and he displays this in his writing. There is nothing wrong with this however what he states as fact is mainly political spin or opinion that is not automatically a given. However his use of codewords and dubious concepts that degrades his work. Additionally he tends to modify his facts to fit his agenda. For instance he states that Gore's attorneys went to court to prevent military ballots from being counted. This is totally false. No matter which side you favored, any review of the legal wrangling in Florida would show that Gore wanted the manually counted votes (both military/veterans and civilian) included and Bush wanted them excluded. He presents himself as a military authority, however his book is intended for people who are unfamiliar with the military and don't know any better. For instance he refers to DACOWITS as a "feminist organization". Anyone even vaguely familiar with DACOWITS (which would include just about any officer with any active duty time, and just about any NCO would know better). Here is the the mission of DACOWITS according to its website
"Mission: The Defense Department Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) was established in 1951 by then Secretary of Defense, George C. Marshall. The Committee is composed of civilian women and men who are appointed by the Secretary of Defense to provide advice and recommendations on matters and policies relating to the recruitment and retention, treatment, employment, integration, and well-being of highly qualified professional women in the Armed Forces."
Hardly a subset of N.O.W.! He also brings up the idea that Clinton was using the military for "experimentation". This is a common code word generally associated with racial integration in a negative way. Under Patterson's definition any change in personnel policy could be considered "experimentation". He argues that Clinton left the United States militarily unprepared when his term expired. This is pure nonsense. What nation has posed a military challenge to the United States. The military Clinton left served this country very well in Afghanistan and Iraq. He damns Clinton for using our military for "nation building" but has no problems with Bush continuing the same policies. He has publicly criticized Clinton for avoiding the draft. But has no problems with either Bush or Chenney.(Ann Richards. line is that Bush and Clinton telling war stories is "the sound of silence") He abhors Clinton's behavior on sexual matters but says little about Tailhook or the Air Force Academy Scandels. Both of which pre-date Clinton. In short Patterson presents nothing but political spin which his fine but rehashing the rightwing political hpye of the 90's renders the book essentially worthless. In general there are books critical of Clinton's policies more intellectually honest than this one. There are also books that give a better review of the military problems of the post Cold War era that are more comprehensive.
| 
