Rating: 
Summary: ****Read it before you buy it.****** Good advice
Review: I browsed this book earlier today at BAMM, enjoyed a nice snack at Joe Muggs and went through the book. Took me less than 15 minutes to realize that this book was essentially worthless, Clarke has an axe to grind and an agenda to fill. Funny timing during an election year. Coincidence?I didn't buy the book and don't recommend it. As I was sitting close to the area where the display was for Against All Enemies and I didn't see anyone buying it. Onviously this is another one of those books that is #1 @ Amazon only. Save your money--unless you are looking for a very expensive door stop.
Rating:
Summary: Bush Lover
Review: -
Hey Carl Hellyer: Three reviews without reading the book, eh? Why not actually read it so you can cast your own "original" aspersions against Clarke's claims instead of regurgitating that orchestrated chorus of attacks on the messenger that they "distort" and you "decide." The issue should be the message and the underlying truth therein. I don't understand why you go to such great lengths to cloud the issue. Have they told you to be wary? Just a portion of the 9/11 Commission's investigation is made public and only the claims that are corroborated will be fully recognized. So ask your commandant if you can remove your blindfold and give it a rest. If you choose to let the constipated tell you what to say, that's fine. I think the rest of us would prefer to think. And FYI, "Bush-hater" is a bit of a misnomer. It's the Administration with whom most take exception, not the figurehead struggling with the phonetics on his telepromter. I mean when the school bullies put him up to the mischief, nobody blames the Special Ed kid.
Rating: 
Summary: Great Book
Review: I thought this was a very well written book, and had many intrigueing points. Even though I just outright didn't believe some of Clarke's claims, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book. It definitely changed the way I look at government, and I'm sure it will generate controversy for some time. With regards to the last several "reviews", please do the rest of the reviewers and/or readers a favor, and do not waste space on this forum just to blast the author. Either say something about the book, or nothing at all!
Rating:
Summary: RICHARD CLARKE=A TRUE AMERICAN LIAR!!!!!
Review: BUT DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, JUST TURN ON CNN AND SEE FOR YOURSELF!!! HE IS DISGRACE TO AMERICA AND HAS EVEN GONE LOWER THAN THE DEMOCRATS USUALLY DO. WHAT A RAT! CLARKE IS COCKROACH!
Rating:
Summary: I think Clarke should go to jail for lying under oath
Review: I always look for the good, but in this case, I can see no good. So yes, I feel that Clarke should go to jail for lying under oath and for that matter, so should Clinton. He was disbarred and impeached but never served the full penalty for his misdoings. Perhaps that is why people like Clarke who were assocciated with Clinton lie under oath--they figure one rat got away with, so can they. Let's make an example out of Clarke and Clinton and stop the insanity. I say we put them both in jail.
Rating:
Summary: What Else is New?
Review: Should I be surprised, just another liberal spewing out lies.
Rating:
Summary: RE: ****Clarke lied under oath****>>>>CNN
Review: So if Clarke lied under o ath it may have been about something other than what is in this book or i t could be the same as what is in the book. And if Clarke lied under oath, he probably lie like crazy about anything where he wasn't under oath. So that means that this whole book may be one big lie, is that correct? In which case Clarke not only lies under oath, but lies when being interviewed for a transcript for a book and lies when being interviewed by CBS 60 minutes too which means that Clarke lies all the time and is not to be trusted, right? Makes perfect sense to me that Clarke is a liar and all of the five star reviews are by liars as well. One liar attracts another liar and another and another. So I guess this whole book deal by Clarke is one BIG FAT LIE! What a bunch of liars!
Rating:
Summary: No credibility...
Review: I'm curious why all of these reviewers that are praising Clarke as a great patriot and a hero, have not questioned his accomplishments as the counter-intelligence czar. What did he counter? Mansoor Ijaz, who brokered the deal to extradite bin Laden from the Sudan and again out of Afghanistan in the spring and summer of 2000, says that "Richard Clarke himself stepped in and blocked the efforts that were being made over and over and over again". Mansoor also added that Clarke's accounts were "absolutely disingenuous; it comes very close to flat-out lying." Porter Goss, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee has also stated "Clarke's testimony to our committee is 180 degrees out of line with what he is saying in his book, he's either lying in his book or he lied to our committee. It's one or the other." Richard Clarke has absolutely no credibility, and that will be proven when his testimony to the House Intelligence Committee is declassified. Don't waste your money on a fictional account by another disgruntled employee.
Rating:
Summary: CNN: "Clarke...lied under oath."
Review: So a liar wrote a book. Does this mean that everything Clarke said is a lie or just some of it? Did Clarke lie only once and if he did should we believe anything else he says because he lied only once or do you doubt everything he says because liars are liars and can't be trusted? Does one liar make a person a perpetual liar or just a solo liar? In anycase at least we know that Clarke is a unqualified liar!
Rating:
Summary: WASTE OF MONEY
Review: No facts. Obviously just an attempt to attack a heroic President. You can skip this one.
| 
