12-01-2009, 03:56 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-01-2009, 04:13 PM by Linda Minor.)
There was a review of Russ' book in Washington Post yesterday which states:
"Baker is skillful at taking bits of information and placing them in contexts that make the Bush family's behavior and decisions look unusual and, frequently, nefarious. Had he been satisfied to raise suspicions, he would have been provocative and, on some counts, persuasive. But by trying to explain everything, to create a unified field theory of American tragedy that has the Bushes as the key actors and beneficiaries, Baker exceeds his grasp."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...02710.html
I notice, however, that the reviewer fails to mention the detailed accounts of how Bush's initial entry into Texas oil business was partially financed by the late Washington Post owner, Eugene Meyer. And it ignores the fact that the reason evidence is so hard to come by is that intelligence operations have the advantage of being called "top secret" and kept out of the hands of the public. Also the book raises numerous questions of the Post's greatest coup--the team of Woodward and Bernstein taking out Nixon. I think researchers understand how hard it is to conclusively "prove" any thesis; it is important to put out new evidence that allows researchers to build on a new premise. I think Russ did succeed in accomplishing that.
"Baker is skillful at taking bits of information and placing them in contexts that make the Bush family's behavior and decisions look unusual and, frequently, nefarious. Had he been satisfied to raise suspicions, he would have been provocative and, on some counts, persuasive. But by trying to explain everything, to create a unified field theory of American tragedy that has the Bushes as the key actors and beneficiaries, Baker exceeds his grasp."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...02710.html
I notice, however, that the reviewer fails to mention the detailed accounts of how Bush's initial entry into Texas oil business was partially financed by the late Washington Post owner, Eugene Meyer. And it ignores the fact that the reason evidence is so hard to come by is that intelligence operations have the advantage of being called "top secret" and kept out of the hands of the public. Also the book raises numerous questions of the Post's greatest coup--the team of Woodward and Bernstein taking out Nixon. I think researchers understand how hard it is to conclusively "prove" any thesis; it is important to put out new evidence that allows researchers to build on a new premise. I think Russ did succeed in accomplishing that.
"History records that the Money Changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance." --James Madison