Cruel and Unusual: Bush/Cheney's New World Order

Rating:
Summary: Liberal Wish List
Review:
Cruel and Unusual would be Crispin's punishment if he'd been a citizen of Afghanistan or Iraq and tried to offer up, in those countries, this type of government critique--pre-U.S. liberation.

But Crispen is free to write anything he wants in the United States--any time he wants. This goes against the basic premise of his book. He's embarrassed by the freedoms he enjoys, as are most liberals. Crispen could only hope and wish for a President Bush that would crush dissent and limit freedom. He would be able to sell more books.

Now, on the other hand, if Kerry, as president, limited our freedoms (conservative freedom of speech) this would be a good thing for our country.

In a phrase, this book is just one big "INARTICULATE MOMENT!"

Rating:
Summary: Cruel And Unusual: Bush/Cheney's New World Order
Review: A gripping assessment of the current culture wars and how the Bush Administration has hijacked the Constitution, replacing it with an extremist evangelical agenda...fueled by a lock-step patriotism.If you want a clear picture as to the direction our Nation is moving in, this book is a must read.

Ben Mercadante

Rating:
Summary: Interesting twist on the battle of "hate" vs. "dissent"
Review: First of all, let me lay my cards on the table. I am a social liberal and a registered democrat, thus any conservative heart to heart on this book is lost in my analysis. Although, I did, amazingly, embark upon this book with an, how do I say, open mind to George W. Bush's leadership. To the meat of the review; I found Professor Miller's book on Bush/Cheney's New World Order fascinating and enlightening. I particulary enjoyed the comparison of President Clinton with current President Bush. The outlash against President Clinton, according to Miller, was a bit excess in comparison to the virtual silence of the press concerning G.W.'s unstatesmanlike antics. If Professor Miller is correct in his observations and factual analysis, then I fear for the direction of our great country. I only hope his use of this book is to offer a stump speech to his coalition of liberal backers, more so than it is an accurate account of our time at hand. Unfortunately, I would have to go with the latter. To offer dissent is patriotic; which, according to Professor Miller, G.W. does not tolerate well. Seemingly, Professor Miller is highly accurate in his studies and highly correct in his regurgitations of prominent news articles, albeit the small amount of press that G.W. has generated in his 4 years in office. I would recommend this book to anyone concerned about the direction of our great democracy and the future under George W. Bush or to anyone who would enjoy an excellent structured political argument against Mr. Bush.



Rating:
Summary: An Excellent Portrait of the threat.
Review: In some places Miller infers a little too much nefarious intent on the neocon/Recons's part from offhand remarks, such as using Bush's clumsy speech to mean Freudian slips (who can really know?), but it is overall a good portrait and analysis of the mind of the neurotic right: always feeling they are persecuted, angry to the depth of their being, and consumed by hate for liberals who do not get in line. The most salient point is that the right is dominated by media and messages that involve hate and extreme emotion. While you can find any number of irrational hate diatribes on the left, they just do not get the same airtime or market share, and are frankly antithetical to what the liberal or moderate philosophies want to accomplish in preserving our great Republic. Bush and Co, however, are firmly in bed with the zealots of their side. Liberalism is not about destroying those whose philosophies are different. To quote Miller:
"Obsessed with wiping out bad people, such hunters [right-wing anti-communists and anti-left zealots] are quite blind to the true greatness of our country. For the spirit of American democracy is, finally, not vindictive, cynical, or punitive, but generous and tolerant: inclined to work things out, and let folks be, and try to make the best of it. Democracy does not believe in demons."
This is not to say that we should be tolerant of terrorism, for terrorism is not a philosophy, but a destructive methodology. The underlying fundamentalism, of radical Islam, is no different than the radical Christianity that we tolerate here at home, and is, as Miller documents, not averse to unethical methodologies. Miller makes a good argument that this Administration and its fold are more interested in destroying terrorists than destroying the means and causes of it. They think a war or taking out certain leaders and factions by military force will end it. It may curb it, obstruct it, but if the root causes remain...
I liked the book because I need and our democracy needs more thoughtful people in print and media who can quote and document and show evidence of the corruptive ideologies responsible for the success of the Right.

Rating:
Summary: Acceptable
Review: Offering at minimum a catharsis for those who dislike Bush intensely, this book is interesting reading and has some interesting surprises. Without a doubt much of it is merely the author's opinions, and his anger and frustration clearly shows through. Anger and hate both require frequent inputs to sustain themselves, and so vituperation is apparent throughout the book. In comparison to most political books of late however, it is kept at a manageable level.

Assuming that it can be cross-checked, and this might be very difficult in some cases, the information in this book is educational and sheds light on many current events and on constitutional law. One example is the discussion of the U.S. Northern Command, or NORTHCOM, which was set up to provide military assistance to civilian authorities. This will weaken, the author argues, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which forbids the use of federal soldiers to police American civilians (the phrase itself refers to the power of a sheriff to call upon the male population for assistance in enforcing the laws). Unfortunately, the author does not discuss just what exceptions Congress made to the Posse Comitatus Act, and what limitations, if any, exists for the military's involvement in civilian law enforcement. Another example is the discussion of the Council for National Policy (CNP) and its connection with the "Christian Reconstructionists". The author claims that individuals such as Trent Lott, Tom Delay, Dan Burton, Ernest Istook, and Don Nickles are members of the CNP, but this might take some time for a typical reader to verify. It is also claimed by the author that Bush made what he calls a "pilgrimage" to the CNP during his run for the presidency in 1999. This may also be difficult for a reader to verify. The philosophical and political stance of the Christian Reconstructionists is quite troubling on the surface, but it should be remembered that whatever their numbers there are plenty of people who disagree with them and will oppose them vociferously if any attempt is made to morph the United States into an oppressive theocracy.

These "facts" and many more are included in the book, and can be subjected to critical review by the reader. Other areas in the book read more like opinions, but do carry weight if one views them from a particular vantage point or context. These typically involve subjective judgments that may not survive careful scrutiny and vary widely between individuals. It is the opinion of this reviewer that the author is correct in his general assessment of Bush's character and motivations, such as when he states that Bush is unable, despite his best efforts to do so, to pretend a stance against war. Indeed, with his arms poised outward away from his armpits and bent at the elbow, his demeanor is rather of a man who is itching for a fight. Talking like a tough guy is natural to him though, and he relishes it more than ever: "bring `em on" will be one of his most remembered phrases. Donning a pilot's uniform and parading on a flight deck, Bush is good at pretending to be a soldier, but his history of avoidance of real conflict betrays him. Both Bush and Cheney have distinguished themselves in the having both yellow and red stains on their records. The yellow of their cowardice and the red of the blood of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians gives their resumes a sickening orange color, to be viewed only from a distance and then only with an empty stomach.

But Bush would not be bothered by any negative assessment of his presidency, for after all, he, does not "feel like he owes anybody an explanation", the latter phrase being taken from one of his speeches and included in the book. Taking advantage of the fears and concerns of the populace after the horrific attack of 9/11, and duped by the followers of Leo Strauss, he found the perfect excuse to play warrior, which from a perusal of his demeanor and from listening to his Freudian slips, he thoroughly enjoyed. Thousands of miles away from real conflict, he finds no conflict with himself about sending others to fight, the latter of which both him and his boss Cheney steadfastly and cunningly avoided themselves.

Rating:
Summary: "Cruel AND Unusual": a denial-busting book
Review: Reviewers who flay Mark Crispin Miller's "Cruel AND Unusual" do so, I believe, because Miller's exposé comes at us in tidalwaves, crashing through our denial(my own included)of the gravity of the consequences of the stolen election of 2000. Profoundly unsettled by Miller's documented contention that Bush and Co conduct themselves like Fascists, the book's detractors veer from sloughing off the danger to labeling Miller a loose-brained liberal. But none of Miller's critics has dared to call "Cruel AND Unusual" a pack of lies.--Daniel Birnbaum, Paris

Rating:
Summary: Now more than ever...
Review: So, do you really need another anti-Bush book in your collection? Even if Kerry had won the election, the answer would be yes. Miller's bleak thesis reaches well beyond George And Dick's Excellent Adventure, into a future of across the board right-wing dominance that we can expect to continue until progressives begin fighting back effectively. The first step is to appreciate just how one-sided the debate is in America today, and although Miller's book can be downright infurating in that respect, it gets the job done.

Miller does a great job of illustrating the distinction between Republican rhetoric about honor, decency and "values" and the reality of 30 years of win-at-all-costs politicking, rife with character assassinations and demagoguery. He also makes a more than convincing case that the media, with its increasingly clear conservative bias, has been complicit in allowing their hypocrisy to succeed for so long. In the most unique part of Miller's assessment, he drives it all home with an analysis of Bill Clinton's record in office and that of his right-wing detractors.

He argues along the way that the right's vilification of Clinton amounted to their projection of their own dark sides onto a politically expedient target. Appropriately, Miller refers to Clinton, the mushy-middle president of reality, and "Clinton," the viciously unethical left-wing radical so often depicted in the media, as two all but completely different entities. Indeed, it is remarkable how many of the false accusations against Clinton have proven to be true of Bush, with no apparent political fallout resulting for the latter; Miller's list is probably incomplete, but it more than makes his point. Conservatives could (and surely will) accuse Miller of cherrypicking and argue that "both sides do it." But he also makes the point that legitimate examples of liberals being as vicious and untruthful against conservatives as we see every day in reverse are genuinely rare; and he provides several examples of arguments made to that effect and why they're wrong.

The one serious flaw I can find in the book is Miller's obvious rage. I dislike Bush and what he's doing to America just as much as Miller does, and yes, we should be angry about it all. But there is a limit to how angry one can sound and still be able to present a coherent argument, and Miller crosses that line on occasion. Also, I'm not convinced that he is truly qualified to make some of the more technical psychological arguments he does regarding right-wingers' rage at differences of opinion or their "projections" onto Clinton.

Still, for those of us who thirst for a more elaborate explanation for the motivations of the right than "because they're mean," Miller does make a strong case. He also provides dozens of examples of that meanness, some of which will probably be new to you no matter how many other anti-Bush books you've read. When battling 30+ years of experience in gutter-politics, you can never have too much evidence on your side!

Read it, be angry, and do something about it.

Rating:
Summary: Great lessons on the US Constitution with left-wing zeal
Review: The author based his work on those locally available resources and labored hard in imitating the right-wing zealots, just to prove that the president is a fool and that his decisions are maddening actions, without rendering solutions that might guide the nation or enlighten the voters. This tunnel-approach to American modern history, right versus left, or religious versus secular, would not offer solution for the scarcity of great visionaries like Thomas Jefferson, in whom the author has great admiration.

(1) The books starts with a biblical script, from Ecclesiastes 10:13, that refers to George Bush's foolish talks and mischievous actions. Then the rest of the book is devoted to support that conclusion.

a. In the author's opinion, Bush's substandard English is only the tip of the iceberg. His ignorance of the U.S. Constitution is more dangerous to America than outside threats (citing Abraham Lincoln). His `One-man rule' as a commander is endangering not only America, but also the entire human race, through aborting the American democracy and adopting apocalyptic imperialism that threatens the entire planet.

b. In Chapter 6, `The Clear and Present Danger', the author wishfully diagnoses Bush's alcoholic problem as `dry drunk syndrome' psychosis by showing hypersensitivity, intransigence, stark dualist perception of the world, quick anger, and disdain of therapy. That vents one's anger but does not deal with the reality that millions of voters have brought those leaders to power and would stick with them despite their shortcomings.

c. On Chapter 3 and 4, `The Wrong Man: I and II', the author launches biased and unfair insults on Bush and Cheney that discredits his impartiality and undermines his hard work.

i. The author believes that George Bush was a draft dodger. Yet, he defends Bill Clinton's excuses of late mail arrival in Oxford and flunking the ROTC eye exams. From Clinton's book, `My Life', it is clear that Clinton despised the war on Vietnam and that he was smart enough to lie and not get caught. Both guys had dodged the draft, for good.

ii. The author describes Bush as an illegitimate president appointed by the Supreme Court, a crook, a liar, and a scofflaw. The author omits the fact that before Florida's ordeal of 2000, Bush had already gained millions of votes allover America and that it was not only the 90,000 votes that were in dispute. In addition, Al Gore had lost in his own state. Despite of having all the knowledge to defeat an outsider, yet Al Gore got, merely, marginally closer number of votes to those of Bush.

iii. On the `Help America Vote Act' of 2001, the author accuses Bush of hacking the 2002 midterm election in Georgia and preparing for a hacked presidential election in 2004. Since all modern banking and databases are today without paper trail, then why national election could not be secured with the same guarantees?

(2) While the author has landed on the zest of the U.S. Constitution that is ignored by Bush and Co., as well as by the media intellectuals and the public, the author has scattered his argument across the entire length of the book, while filling the book with trivial conversations of little players, obtained from newspapers, TV, and radio shows. Scott Ritter's conversations alone occupy 30 pages. That only deals of the UN weapon inspection of Iraq. Back then, before the invasion of Iraq, the country was claimed to have the largest fifth army in the world, plenty of police, and has no security problems. Today, every politician claims that Iraq needs a new army and a newly trained police. Where did the old army and police force have gone, in only one year of occupation? That author has failed to focus on such great error of the American occupation in turning Iraq into a protracted quagmire. The lost army and police are now building terror cells. Although the author mentions the destruction of infrastructure in Iraq by the poorly planned invasion, he failed to estimate how devastating that error alone on the occupation of Iraq.

(3) The author argues that the collusion of the American press with the White House and the abandonment of the purpose of the US Constitution are endangering this great democracy. Yet, since Thomas Jefferson until now, many bad things have happened in America, with the blessing of the senate, regardless of who the president was.

a. The 1801 American Ideal of `equal and exact justice to all men' had been sought relentlessly by Martin L. King, 1968, and others, and is still being sought today.

b. The 1801 American Ideal of `peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none' had been breached by Truman in 1948, by displacing millions of Palestinians and establishing a fanatic religious state on a foreign land. That also goes against the `Treaty with Tripoli' approved by John Adams, June 7, 1797. That treaty offers clearer explanation of modern terrorism against America, amongst the entire Western world. Since 1948, the American government has abandoned the American Ideal of `exact justice for all men' and has supported Israel in oppressing and displacing the Palestinians.

Rating:
Summary: Further excellent research against the Bush regime
Review: The pending 2004 elections are perhaps this country's most high-stakes contest since the Civil War and that era's issue of slavery.

Freely dropping words like 'security' and 'patriot' into his own campaign trail conversations, George W. Bush is in fact presiding over a government racing to ensure the American people and the world are under his control. He only likes people who can be molded into a perpetual/near-perpetual state of fear.

Countless reports (including those from within the government) now openly question the legitimacy of the Iraq invasion. Because Saddam Hussein did not have either the oft-mentioned Weapons of Mass Destruction or ties to Al Quaeda, this military venture has been a ruse to cover the administration's own tail.

In true fascist form however, the president and his stand-ins are insisting that anybody who questions their motives is really trying to undermine security and patriotism. Never mind the ease which Haliburton and other oil industry businesses (with convenient) connections to senior administration officials have secured contracts for `post war' Iraq.

The only reason why Bush distinguishes himself is the insistence on absolute rule at all costs. The American government's checks and balances system was intentionally created to prevent tyranny. If left totally to their own devices, the Bush team WOULD formally scrap the United States Constitution and other documents which have largely prevented the fraud which was rampant throughout other countries.

Even if Mr. Bush does not waffle on issues, his mannerisms pose their own set of problems for good (and certainly safe) government. If the Bush administration felt compelled to lie about their REAL case for invading Iraq and then overthrowing Saddam Hussein, what else are they lying to us about?

Like Joe McCarthy in the 1950's the Bush administration exploits people's fear of an uncertain future for explicitly self-centered ends. If we survive these times, America will look back at this era and wonder why so many otherwise rational people had literally allowed themselves to be brainwashed into a perpetual state of fear/panic by the government.

I find it significant that so many once ardently Bush conservatives are now reduced to talking about the president's passion and single-mind determination---instead of his ethics and honesty. Because these were allegedly BIG sticking points with the Clinton administration, their double standard is very telling of actual priorities.

As long as George W. Bush is given free reign to destroy the world however and whenever he likes, these people do not care that American troops are being wounded and dying for this administration's lies.


Rating:
Summary: Sometimes the Truth Hurts
Review: This is a very powerful book. It shows the true face of the Bush & Co. Administration. It shows their hypocrasy and how they are what the Republicans claimed [...] was.

Miller, unlike "conservative" writers like Coulter and Hannity, supports his arguments with FACTS than any reader can go look up for themselves. He pulls nothing out of his [...] like Rush or O'Reilly do.

Those that give this one star are also those people that gave the Unfit for Command book on Kerry - 5 stars. Why? Because this book scares the hell out of them, because it tells the TRUTH!