Customer Reviews


27 Reviews
5 star:
 (16)
4 star:
 (8)
3 star:    (0)
2 star:
 (1)
1 star:
 (2)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 

The most helpful favourable review
The most helpful critical review


53 of 53 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Was there really a rapist in the Oval Office?
Christoper Hitchens seems to enjoy demolishing the reputations of great public figures and this book is no exception. In a short account, Hitchens makes various attacks on Bill and Hillary Clinton's personal and political characters including, most sensationally, the claim that Bill Clinton may be a rapist.
'No One Left To Lie To' is very well written, and Hitchens...
Published on 25 Jun. 2001

versus
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars His bile is worse than his bite
I am a great admirer of Hitchens, the audiobook of “Arguably” was my companion for three months and that of Hitch-22 is as enjoyable as the paper book, but his bile is worse than his enthusiasms about travel, literature, personalities and politics. II didn’t enjoy his book on Mother Theresa which was a hatchet job and I don’t enjoy this. Partly...
Published 9 months ago by barbicandy


‹ Previous | 1 2 3 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

53 of 53 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Was there really a rapist in the Oval Office?, 25 Jun. 2001
By A Customer
Christoper Hitchens seems to enjoy demolishing the reputations of great public figures and this book is no exception. In a short account, Hitchens makes various attacks on Bill and Hillary Clinton's personal and political characters including, most sensationally, the claim that Bill Clinton may be a rapist.
'No One Left To Lie To' is very well written, and Hitchens draws upon all of his resources to direct a stylish, witty and concise polemic at the Clintons. He does not try to be impartial, merely fair, and he makes no apologies for the constant stream of hate that he has for the Clintons and some of their allies.
As for the allegations themselves, each one is thoroughly investigated - sometimes to the point where he can become a little too pedantic in loooking at what people did and did not say in response to these claims (which can be a problem when you are dealing with politicians. You don't need Christopher Hitchens to point out that politicians rarely answer the questions that they are asked!).
The central problem is that Christopher Hitchens bases many of his key allegations (including the rape allegation) on what people don't say rather than what they do, and on pointing out how different circumstantial evidence points to his conclusion. Very rarely does he actually offer any hard proof for what he claims.
However, his political accusations are well presented and might give those on the Left pause for thought - Hitchens, a former Marxist and staunch defender of the Left shows how Clinton has betrayed his supporters through "triangulation" which effectively means adopting some of the opposition's policies to neutralise their opposition.
Overall, 'No One Left To Lie To' is an absorbing read, and while it doesn't prove Bill Clinton guilty of everything claimed within, it certainly raises many questions you haven't heard before.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


24 of 25 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Now if this is not true...., 21 May 2009
You would sue the life out of someone who wrote this about you. If it is true, you would probably ignore it. This speaks volumes for me.

I always felt the need for a both when ever I saw Clinton and now I know why. The passage on Hilary Clinton's healthcare program is mind blowing, and his analysis of 'triangulation' (Blair seems to have read this playbook) is brilliant.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


7 of 7 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Forensic exposition of corruption and vanity, 22 Jan. 2013
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: No One Left to Lie to: The Triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton (Kindle Edition)
Other reviewers have said just about everything about this,I would just like to add how readable Hitchens prose is. This really does read like a novel and in the process exposes with great detail how vain, corrupt and even criminal Clinton was.
Hitchens' main thrust is how Clinton and his acolytes maintained power by Triangulation and that theory is well developed and illustrated here. Critics have countered with the "If Clinton was so rigtht wing why did they hate him so much". Hitches also demolishes that as well. Republicans didn't just want their policies enacted (which Clinton invariably did), they nwanyed the power and position themselves and hated Clinton not for being a so-called left-wing Democrat but for robbing them of that power.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


18 of 20 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Very well written, and exposes the monster behind the man., 3 Sept. 2009
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
Even before I read this book I never trusted Clinton. There was just something slightly creepy about him, a cold, power hungry, ruthless look in his eyes, the way he spoke, as if he wanted to control everything. A demeanour which suggested an unscrupulous, nasty side to his character. This book just confirmed everything I thought and more. How so many people still trust and like this guy, and go to all his and hilary's speeches, cheer them, and applaud them, is beyond me. From the atrocious execution of a disabled black man, to the constant lying and triangulation, the way in which he used the democrat party to implement very right wing policies,the failure to answer questions properly, the horrible chauvaunistic attitude towards women, viewing them as objects rather than people, to the taking of money for his party from extremely dubious people, this book exposes it all. I think it has been clear for a long time now that the Clintons have no principles whatsoever, and that the only people they really care about are themselves. Hitchens superbly argues that the way in which the left defended him was a big sign of degeneration, he is witty, smart, perceptive, and sticks to the point. The book is short, and I would have liked it to have been longer, but despite its length, its impact is still massive. Buy this and be shown a side to Clinton you've never seen before.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


15 of 17 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Time for an update?, 31 Mar. 2008
Well written and intriguing analysis of the Clintons during their White house and Senate campaign(Mrs.C) years.Makes for very uncomfortable reading when juxtaposed with the media's slavish indulgence of the "clinton foibles".Given that we now have Mrs.Clinton trying to get back into the White House(seems she did not take enough towels and linens away last time),maybe Hitchens should write an update .After all, Billary have been very busy since this book was written in 2000.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


14 of 16 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Begging to be sued, 23 Oct. 2008
By 
J. D. Aspinall (South West England) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
Why has Hitchens not been sued by the Clintons? This book - just as Hitchens's demolishing of Henry Kissinger - is so breathtakingly defamatory, that any public figure would, surely, issue proceedings.

Kissinger wouldn't sue Hitchens, and neither will the Clintons. Given we live in an image obsessed world, and even minor celebrities sue each other for a pastime, one has to ask:

Why not?
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars important perspective, 13 Jun. 2013
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
everything written by this zealot for truth is vitally important and should not be neglected. he was one of the great minds of our time,and many of the others were close friends of his.that said.i should point out that any random essay from "arguably"will probably be found to be more readable and informative.....and on this topic,i can think of frames from steve bell that are in themselves more elucidating and memorable....and pointedly aggressive.nonetheless,it is by christopher hitchens,and thus indispensible. what more might he have done,had he lived?read christopher and his mates;you will not find a duff sentence or an untruthful one.....oh,and don't smoke....you may survive to do some good work yourself..
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


12 of 14 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Amazing read, 14 May 2012
By 
O. Dairo (London) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: No One Left to Lie to: The Triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton (Kindle Edition)
Brilliantly written tirade on the Clinton brand. Brilliant insights but difficult to appreciate without a good historical awareness of Clinton and his presidency. This is not a historically account .... it is a polemic and a great one at that. Brilliant vocabulary builder and an insightful book
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


4.0 out of 5 stars Brave, 14 Jan. 2015
What with Hillary being the frontrunner for the 2016 election and Jeb Bush looking every day more like he might be the Republican candidate, my friends have taken to teasing me. When I protest that there's no way in Hell she'd get my vote they chuckle and, depending on how well they know me, they bring up one or more of the following points:

1. Jeb's brother took Osama Bin Laden's bait hook, line and sinker and got us into two wars we were guaranteed to lose
2. Jeb's brother has made all of us accomplices to torture, giving justification to the sundry Kalashnikov-wielding (and firing) maniacs currently in the news
3. Jeb's brother enacted all the legislation that favors passive income, which is one of the foundations of today's inequality
4. Jeb's brother looked Putin in the eyes and did not see KGB, perhaps because...
5. Jeb's dad used to run the freakin' CIA
6. My (pathetic) voting record stands as Dukakis '88, Obama '08

My old friend and current business partner Bernard goads me pretty much every day. "Your candidate" he yells when Hillary's on the TV screen. He drove me so far up the wall the other day that I spent a half hour on Wikipedia listing what it is I dislike about Bill Clinton and totting it up on a (not so) quick email. To wit:

First and foremost, he was the political godfather of irrational exuberance: he not only presided over the biggest post-war bubble in history (hello NASDAQ) but he actually helped cause it by leaving the economy to Greenspan, Rubin and a still very green (if academically brilliant) Larry Summers. And of course his policies seeded the next housing bubble. An anthology of relevant laws from his time reads as follows:
1994 Repeal of the Interstate banking restrictions (the precursor to "Too Big to Fail")
1999 Repeal of the Glass Steagall Act (that turned Citi, BofA, WaMu and Countrywide into investment banks ---and caused them to race each other toward insolvency)
2000 Commodity Futures and Modernization Act (that freed all OTC derivatives from regulation and created the quadrillion dollar monster that will eventually swallow us)
Lots of people also say he strong-armed the agencies into lending to minorities who could never hope to pay back, but opinions differ. History of course records that he balanced the budget, but if you can't do so in the middle of the biggest bubble ever then there's a problem.

Second, and for all his posturing about civil rights, Clinton had exactly zero regard for human rights or human life. Not only did he give us the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (the precursor to the monster revealed by the Snowden revelations), but he timed his various international bombings, "Wag the Dog" stylie, to coincide with his own political battles in Washington (such as the Lewinski hearings) and of course he emptied our entire arsenal of depleted uranium-238 ammunition on Serbia. Hell, we actually ran out of Tomahawk missiles and had to order new ones. Look up "teratogenesis" on the Net. And of course, the "first black President" (funny how we don't hear that so much these days) brought us the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act that forced single mothers out of the home and into "workfare" with disastrous repercussions on their offspring we are only now starting to fully understand.

Third, Clinton wrote the book in terms of selling out to Corporate America. This is a true "where do I start" thing. Leaving banking and finance aside, he TOTALLY sold out to Big Pharma (for example, check out the 1999 FDA rule change that allowed Direct-to-Consumer advertising of prescription medicine -no other civilized country allows this) and indeed Hillary convinced Obama to get the Pharmaceuticals on side for Obamacare some 13 years later; he let corporate America run roughshod over the Sherman Act, allowing Microsoft to bury Netscape, Intel to destroy AMD, you name it, and all this of course could only fuel the bubble even further.

Fourth, Al Qaeda happened under Clinton. Nobody talks about it, but it's entirely true. While he was busy putting together the crappy Oslo deal that contained the seeds of the Intifada, failing to put together a potentially better Camp David deal and buddying up with Jerry Adams (OK, I'm being unfair, peace in Ireland was a major achievement and he was part of it), he totally took his eyes off THE BIG ONE, even though the first WTC bombings happened three years into his Presidency.

Also, he redefined the term "sleazy" (starting with the campaign he led against my compatriot Paul Tsongas for the nomination), makes Bill Cosby look like a good husband and a pillar of society, can't say no to free money (e.g. letting Refco give up good trades to his wife, charging a quarter million to speak, or charging out Chelsea on 80k if he can't make it himself), used the presidential pardon to absolve Marc freaking Rich, the man just can't help himself. I died laughing the other day when I saw his paws all over that supermarket heiress who'd just divorced Nixon's grandson. You know who I'm talking about, the one with the massive you-know-whats.

That said, the points I lay out above are mere detail.

My main problem with William Jefferson Clinton is the following: Politics is a game of see-saw. The essence of a stable society is that the government must alternate between the left and the right. When one party stays in charge for too long, it gets entrenched and forces the entire society toward an accommodation that proves to be disastrous. You get dead ends such as we find in Italy / Mexico / Japan and with denouements such as we are currently observing in Venezuela. BY DINT OF BEING A RIGHT-WINGER IN ALL BY RHETORIC, CLINTON BEQUEATHED US 28 YEARS IN A ROW OF SO CALLED "FREE-MARKET" / DEREGULATORY POLICY which coincided with the "second machine age" heralded by the general adoption of the personal computer as well as the "End of History" Zeitgeist that followed the fall of the Soviet Union and may have caused permanent damage to the fabric of American society and American democracy. That is, I believe, Clinton's disastrous legacy.

Bernard was unmoved by my arguments. He still thinks I'll vote for Hillary. Hell, if she's running against Romney rather than Jeb I even might. (I really hope Bernard does not read my reviews, or that he only reads the first and last paragraph like most sane people do!)

So I sought out help in the shape of Christopher Hitchens' classic anti-Clinton polemic, which I hadn't read before, presumably because at the time I did not have that big a beef against Clinton.

The main premise of the book is captured in the following quote (p.60):

"In the critical days of his impeachment struggle, Mr Clinton was often said to be worried sick about this place in history. That place, however is already secure. He will be remembered as the man who used the rhetoric of the New Democrat to undo the New Deal." He adds further down in the book that "In power he has completed the Reagan counter-revolution and made the state into a perennial friend of those who are already rich and secure." (p. 94)

The actual aim of the book, however, is more ambitious. It is to prove that "Personal crookery on the one hand and the cowardice and conservatism on the other are indissolubly related," (p. xxiii) in other words that the outcome was the result of a Faustian pact "Clinton the crook" had to make to stay in power. In Hitchens' words, again, "the traditional handling of the relation between populism and elitism involves achieving a point of balance between those who support you and those whom you support." (p.6)

Exhibit 1 is Robert Reich's take on welfare reform under Clinton. In the words of his Labor Secretary "The original idea had been to smooth the passage from welfare to work with guaranteed health care, child care, job training and a job paying enough to live on. The 1996 legislation contained none of these supports. In effect, what was dubbed welfare reform merely ended the promise of help to the indigent and their children that Franklin D Roosevelt had initiated more than sixty years before. In short, being tough on welfare was more important than being correct about welfare." (p.9) A quote from Hillary leaves no doubt that looking tough was paramount to the Clintons: "Our liberal friends are just going to understand that we have to go for welfare reform - for eliminating the welfare entitlement. They are just going to have to get used to it. I am not going to listen to them or be sympathetic to them." (p. 160)

Exhibit 2 is Hillarycare. Here Hitchens alleges that the main beneficiaries would have been Aetna, Prudential, MetLife, Cigna and Travelers at the expense of the myriads of smaller, independent health insurers, the ones who fought tooth and nail against the reforms through the famous "Harry and Louise" ads. He quotes Robert Dreyfus of the Physicians for a National Health Program saying "The Clintons are getting away with murder by portraying themselves as opponents of the insurance industry. It's only the small fry that oppose their plan. Under any managed competition scheme the small ones will be pushed out of the market very quickly." I must confess I had no idea about this until I read the book. But I believe it. Hillary was at it most recently when she lined up the Pharma industry to stand behind Obamacare.

From there we move to spinelessness. There's a chapter on Clinton's hypocrisy when it comes to his support of black people. Hitchens lists three Clinton allies who were left high and dry when it was no longer convenient to support them. I thought that was actually rather poorly argued. I don't think Clinton dropped these guys because they're black, he basically was the first president in a long line of presidents who will drop a strong candidate for a job if they can't get him through easily. Obama is certainly a lot worse than Clinton that way...

By far the strongest chapter is entitled "Clinton's War Crimes." Hitchens focuses on three such "war crimes," starting with the bombing of the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan during the Lewinsky hearings. He shows that all three claims made by Clinton to justify the bombing were false: it most certainly produced vital medicines, it most certainly did not produce building blocks for VX gas and it had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden. Moreover, the bombing destroyed the rapport local American agents had worked hard to build with the Sudanese government. Similarly, the Afghanistan bombings of the same vintage were totally unjustified and ineffective. As for the Baghdad bombings, Hitchens not only calls into question the purpose and effectiveness of the strike, but reveals that "a much less questionable airstrike was cancelled because at that time Clinton needed to keep an "option" in his breast pocket." (p. 117)

Another chapter is dedicated to proving that "we have a rapist in the White House" and I must say it is rather convincing.

With all that said, and while the book has given me tons of reasons to reinforce my feelings against the Clintons, I don't see how the sleaze and lack of morals are one and the same as the "Triangulation" of "making promises to the Left while delivering to the Right." From more recent history, Dominique Strauss Kahn is quite clearly not a man with terribly much respect for women, but he was a very principled politician. Kennedy and FDR spring to mind too, though they were less forceful about their conquests.

Basically, the book failed to convince me that "Personal crookery on the one hand and the cowardice and conservatism on the other are indissolubly related." But it was a fun read nonetheless. And on p. 148 it has this awesome little gem of a put-down for the 2016 Democratic frontrunner:

"Speaking of where things lie, she can in a close contest keep up with her husband for mendacity. Like him, she is no just a liar, but a lie."

Ouch!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


5 of 6 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars His bile is worse than his bite, 8 April 2014
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
I am a great admirer of Hitchens, the audiobook of “Arguably” was my companion for three months and that of Hitch-22 is as enjoyable as the paper book, but his bile is worse than his enthusiasms about travel, literature, personalities and politics. II didn’t enjoy his book on Mother Theresa which was a hatchet job and I don’t enjoy this. Partly because time has weaned the shock of the former President’s contempt for truth, abuse of the constitution and disrespect of women; partly because as an English reader to whom the status of Speaker of the House, the function of caucuses and the nature of confirmation hearings are fairly opaque, the whole thing doesn’t make much sense. The book is full of names that meant nothing to me at the time and less now. Well written as it is, for English readers this is a book for Hitchens completists only.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


‹ Previous | 1 2 3 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

This product

Only search this product's reviews