Customer Reviews

Passion for Truth: From Finding JFK's Single Bullet to Questioning Anita Hill to Impeaching Clinton

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I am quite torn on how to rate this book. Given that people should know the thought process of many of those who serve in government, this book is well worth reading. Specter seems to see himself as the great diviner of justice, rather than a bit of a hack who plays independent but seems to always buckle to the right wing of his party. Particularly shocking is that he does not seem to understand what he has done wrong, instead insisting on rather strange defenses.

I will not go into his continued insistence in the so-called "magic bullet" theory. I for one do not support the Oliver Stone fantasy of events, but whatever your predilection, no bullet does what that bullet did. Indeed, Specter still fails to discuss the fact that no one seems to be able to recreate that famous bullet's trajectory of multiple wounds creating right turns.

Where I think Specter should be really ashamed is his half apology that he did not understand how he and his colleagues shredding of Anita Hill looked or that he did not understand how women felt about sexual harassment. Left undiscussed is the evidence that has come to light indicating that Justice Thomas, in collusion with the first Bush administration, conspired to hide evidence that lends a great deal of credibility to Hill's charges. Specter just doesn't want to talk about it, less he tarnish his self image as the man of great principal.

People should know how many politicians have warped views of reality. For that reason this is a good read. Just take it with a grain of salt.

I'm somehow uneasy about 'Passion for Truth'. There's no denying that it's a well-written version of events, but it's clear to me (a non-American living in Europe) that the senator tells it how HE sees it, not, maybe, how it was. I can't identify exactly WHY I hold this view, but something tells me that the author is not being wholly honest with himself. Maybe he set out to be honest, and maybe he believes that he has been honest, but I just have nagging doubts. It's possibly got something to do with his over-inflated opinion of himself - a trait spotted by other reviewers.

A while ago, I read and reviewed John Major's autobiography. Whatever you may have thought about Major as a Prime Minister, his autobiography was refreshingly honest, and that sincerity shone through. I'm afraid I cannot say the same about Senator Specter. I had the feeling that he was trying to justify his decisions and actions.

All that said, Passion for Truth was an intriguing read - particularly Sen. Specter's support for 'The Single Bullet' theory - a theory as flawed as a cracked diamond. But there's no doubting Sen. Specter's passion for sticking to his guns, be he right or be he wrong. Clearly he has been a highly successful politician, so maybe his overt narcissism is well-earned. Anybody, whether you agree with them or not, who has had a career as high profile as Specter's is worthy of a retrospective (auto)biography, and 'Passion for Truth' delivers what it says - one man's view on his own life.

I roomed with Charles Robbins, the co-author, for three years in college, so I had to buy Passion for Truth! Nevertheless, I can confirm that this book is a most interesting read. Specter writes about a handful of important moments in recent US history - the Warren Commission, the Bork and Thomas supreme court confirmation hearings, and Clinton's impeachment. Passion for Truth is an easy read, so its 500+ pages are not overwhelming. Senator Specter himself is an anti-hero of sorts. The events described in this book are much more interesting and important than he is (although he might argue that point), however the senator's ringside seat at several major historical events affords him a unique perspective. The chapters on Clinton's impeachment completely wrapped me around the axle - the authors have done such a good job describing the behind-the-scenes process that I found myself infuriated once again, just as I felt during the actual impeachment process. For anyone interested in how our government works in practice, rather than in theory, Passion for Truth provides a window into the Washington morass.

Senator Specter's candid discussion regarding his relentless sleuthing efforts as part of the Warren Commission's JFK investigation is certainly commendable. Yet amazingly, Specter admits not taking notes during key interviews, but rather relying on his own razor-sharp memory. He also reveals that former President Lyndon Johnson, who should have been considered a potential conspiracy/cover-up suspect, actually hand-picked senior members of the short-handed Warren Commission who were then not only unreliable but made little or no contribution to the overall findings. That is why the then young, swashbuckling Specter was able to promote his own heroic conclusions about the events, which he now refers to as the Single Bullet Conclusion. And thanks to Senator Specter's conclusive theory, we may have narrowly avoided WWIII with parties who otherwise may have wrongly been considered potential conspiracy suspects (including the Mafia and Jimmy Hoffa?)

At least one of Senator Specter's deductions seems troubling however. He refers to a magic bullet - the bullet used as the basis for his Single Bullet Theory - which apparently (due to momentum) rolled off a particular stretcher at Parkland Hospital on that fateful day. Since JFK's stretcher was never present in the area where this bullet was found, and Governor Connally's stretcher was, Specter concludes that the bullet must not have come from JFK's stretcher. But Specter never clearly proves this magic bullet did in fact come from Connally's stretcher either. Here Senator Specter's passion for truth seems to dissipate. Simple logic might force us to conclude that the "magic bullet," as Specter's witnesses seem to reveal, came from a third stretcher that carried neither JFK nor Connally and was therefore not even material to the JFK investigation. Without that bullet, the Warren Commission's conclusion becomes a "Zero" Bullet Theory.

On first pass, the notion of a "Zero" Bullet Theory seems preposterous. But upon deeper introspection, it might actually make complete sense. Perhaps there was more "magic" taking place in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963 than readily meets the naked eye.

For nearly 40 years this case has been considered a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma. To repeat Specter's cliché, "Truth is often stranger than fiction."

And the truthful answer, my friends, is still blowin' in the wind ... ... but hopefully, not much longer..

Just one question/comment.
If Specter has such a "Passion for Truth", why did he knowingly B.S. us with his disgraceful "magic bullet theory"?
He KNEW that Kennedy had a wound in his BACK, yet said it was in his "neck".
If Specter doesnt know a man's back from a man's neck, can we believe that he has any talent for recognizing and telling the "truth"?
After all, Specter helped Ira Einhorn,( a man who killed a woman and left her decaying body in a chest in his apartment) to escape the law....until the law caught up with him (Einhorn).
How funny, (in an unfunny way), that the man who created THE biggest political lie in history (the magic bullet theory), named his book "a passion for TRUTH".
If the title "Passion for truth" and the name "Arlen Specter" arent an oxymoron, I dont know what is.
Mr Specter, "truth" is in the eye of the beholder. And when you worked for the Warren Commission, contact lenses woud have served you well. I mean no disrespect, sir.
I WILL give credit to Mr Specter for being one of the more compassionate Senators, when it comes to protecting the welfare of Animals. For that, I thank Him. And I commend him.
He has done good in that area. Thank you Sir.
God Bless You for caring about Animals. I thank you on their behalf.

"Passion For Truth" is a massive 542-page autobiographical tome of the life of Senator Arlen Specter. It concentrates on specific incidents in his career, points of controversy in which the truth was needed and in which he found himself thrust into the middle - or dived into the middle.

The first 300 pages are rather interesting, as they cover the incidents of the Philadelphia Teamsters racketeer trials, the Warren Commission and up to election to the U.S. Senate, in addition to Specter's life. We gain insight as to how he was raised, in what he believes - in other words, what formed his character to get him from his birthplace in Kansas to the Capitol. It's enjoyable, enlightening reading.

Something happens when he gets to the Senate, though - and we learn that the name of this book is not "Passion For (The Whole) Truth," or even "Arlen Specter's Opinions."

Of the many controversial topics that have occurred in Washington D.C. in the last 17 years, we study four in this book: the investigation of the Ruby Ridge incident, the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, and the impeachment of Clinton. All were strongly contested partisan battles, and Specter weighs in with his opinions on each. I stress "opinions," not to be confused with facts, despite the title of the book. To say that one political party was more partisan than other in these fights would call for a measure that neither Specter nor I nor anyone has at their disposal. Specter leaves no doubt that he considers his opposite political party more partisan, less open-minded and a bit less worthy that his own party, particularly during the recent impeachment. Believe me, Arlen, there was enough partisanship to go around by everyone in that contest.

Equally doubtless is his distaste for our previous president. The background leading up to the trial received a workout, with Specter giving high points to the Kenneth Starr and low marks to anyone on the defense of the president. Specter maintains that the trial was flawed from the time that it was given to the Senate for deliberation; he states that Jim Rogan reportedly said, "I believe that every manager believes that we could have gotten the twelve Democratic votes (that they needed to impeach the president) if we had the opportunity to present our case."(p. 526) As any good lawyer will tell you, you just don't know how a jury's going to vote, Arlen. He seems mystified "that the American public was prepared to accept boorish behavior, perhaps simply because the economy was so strong and the government was otherwise running so smoothly . . . In President Clinton's case, admitted behavior clearly more repugnant than that denied by Judge Thomas still did not outrage the American public or switch many congressional minds. Had Thomas admitted Hill's charges, his nomination could not have survived."(p. 527) Probably not, Arlen: Clinton had 22 months to go until his presidency was over for good, while Arlen figured Thomas was good for perhaps forty years, and Thomas himself said he intended to serve until he was one hundred (p. 394).

The capper of all was when "Republicans were irate when the president, joined by throngs of Democrats, held a 'victory celebration' in the Rose Garden after the House voted out articles of impeachment" (p.505), after being promised a "gloat-free" zone. Was it any more raucous that the "victory celebration" held in the House of Representatives when that body of legislators voted to impeach the president?

By the way, Senator Specter, as long as you're digging for the truth in government, how active was your investigation of the Iran Contra affair?

In the end, a book that started out interesting grinds to a crawl, buried under the weight of its own promises. And we learn one more lesson from this - as with Bill Bennett's book, just because you have an attribute in your title, that doesn't mean that you have to know all that much about it.

I am no particular fan of Senator Specter, but I found this book very well-written and full of fascinating inside accounts of events we all followed with great attention. As expected, there is very little modesty displayed in this book, but then Senator Specter has had a very successful career. This book captures one's interest from the start, and I found that I could read it even tho my wife was listening to tv in the same room! It was just so much more interesting than what was being said on tv. His account of the questioning of Anita Hill is especially riveting, and he does a good job of showing that she did actually change her testimony over the noon recess, thus showing that her credibility was rightly considered suspect. On the Bork nomination I happened at the time to disagree with Senator Specter's position, but he does a fairly good job justifying his opposition to Bork. Anyone who has followed national news for the past 40 years will find reading this book a rewarding experience, I would think

Arlen Specter has been an influential and controversial figure in American politics for decades. If for only that reason alone, this book would be worth reading for those who are interested in politics, American history, or current events.

However, the book delivers much more than just the details of Senator Specter's distinguished career. It is a well-written and quite readable and engrossing book that also gives the reader insight into the nature of Mr. Specter. Not only does he share the pivotal events in his life that led him towards a life of public service, but the reader also is allowed a glimpse into his character. He shares his laudable and selfless values, which genuinely seem to motivate his behavior (His "Passion for Truth"), but his incessant belittling of every other political figure mentioned in the book gives the reader insight into the arrogant self-centerness that makes him so controversial. It is striking that nearly everyone mentioned in the book is mentioned only to repeat a failure, miscalculation, or misstatement. Important and successful politicians all appear foolish and/or selfish in comparison to Mr. Specter, in Mr. Specter's eyes. Ed Rendell, the very successful two-term mayor of Philadelphia appears to be a buffoon in this book. All Mr. Specter recalls of his meeting with the then former President Dwight D. Eisenhower was that he made a casual statement about an objectionable Supreme Court decision which Mr. Specter interpreted to mean that the former two-term President was unaware of the separation of powers in our government. Is it really reasonable to think that a two-term President doesn't understand how Congress works? Oh yes, we are also told that President Eisenhower's jacket was poorly matched to his slacks.

I am not trying to be overly critical of Mr. Specter. I believe he has been an immensely successful politician that has served Philadelphia and later Pennsylvania well. His egotism is not entirely undeserved. His career is impressive and well worthy of a biography.

Included are detailed accounts of his service on the Warren Commission after the Kennedy assassination and his defense of his controversial "Single Bullet Theory," accounts of his time as a very successful and high-profile Assistant District Attorney for Philadelphia, the confirmation hearing for Judge Bork in his unsuccessful nomination for the Supreme Court, and the interrogation of Anita Hill in the confirmation hearing for the successful nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, and the Clinton impeachment trial.

I personally found the more recent events to be the most interesting. Arlen Specter's role and perspective on the Clinton impeachment is fascinating and different from that which has been reported elsewhere. I gained insight into the Anita Hill and Robert Bork controversies as well.

Overall, I would highly recommend this book to anyone who might be interested. Whether you admire or dislike Arlen Specter, you can learn a lot about him and contemporary politics by reading this book. My one reservation in recommending this text is that a large portion of the book is about his days in Philadelphia and local politics. For those without an interest in Philadelphia and its politics, this portion of the book may be dull. Clearly, this section is of most interest to Philadelphians or people with an interest in Philadelphia. However, the rest should attract broad interest and it finishes with the best material, which will motivate you not to quit before you finish reading it.

Is the book interesting; Yes. Is Arlen Specter interesting; No. While Mr. Specter has certainly been involved in some of the most interesting aspects of American politics over the last half decade (The Warren Commission, Anita Hill, Ruby Ridge, the Bork Supreme Court Nomination and the Impeachment Trial) his Forrest Gump like ability to put himself in the center of everything is ridiculous and farcical.

His self-serving, put in every positive quote ever written about him type of style, might be an attempt to make some forget his ridiculous positions on Anita Hill, the single bullet theory, and of course his stupid vote on impeachment. Throughout the book, he fails to acknowledge that he was rude and showed no compassion for even the possible victim in the Thomas/Hill sexual harassment case. He leaves out all possible contradictory information that has been found against his Kennedy assasination single bullet theory (of which literally hundreds of books have disproven). Then finally when you think you can take no more, he tries to explain his ridiculous "not proven" verdict (rather than guilty of not guilty) in the Clinton impeachment trial as being one he found in Scottish law. HELLO Mr. Specter this is America, I fail to see any kilts around here. At that point, it is crystal clear that this man just wants (no NEEDS) to be the center of attention.

While Mr. Specter is an incredibly intelligent man with many accomplishments, it is in aggrandizing his lesser or non-accomplishments where he becomes embarassing.

While another Senator told Mr. Specter that if he ever got in trouble with the law he would want Arlen to represent him, I would disagree. His disagreeable manner and grandstanding would put off any jury against a defendant. But in his defense, I would have loved to see Mr. Specter prosecute the O.J. Simpson case.

Arlen Specter's interesting and revealing book "Passion For Truth," missed at least one key event during the questioning of Clarence Thomas by, I think, Joe Biden. This was when Thomas seemed perplexed when asked for a way in verifying his truthfulness. The answer was obviously a polygraph exam which law enforcement uses every day to eliminate suspects in getting at the truth.