Rating: 
Summary: The ethicist with no ethics disses a man above reproach.
Review: Singer joins the predictable cast of thousands who have sounded off against Bush for daring to bring a sense of ethics and dignity to the Oval Office. Men do not like the leadership of the godly - much like roaches flee from the light. This is the same Peter Singer who believes that parents should be allowed to kill their babies even TWO YEARS into their lives, since even at that age, a rat has more intelligence (read, "worth") in his delusional mind.
How ironic that this same man would view the life of a murderer or terrorist as being on par with an unborn or even two-year old child! How fitting that he is termed one of the WOLRD'S leading philosophers. In the end, the world's philosophers will live and die and no one will remember them, "but the word of the Lord abides forever!"
Rating: 
Summary: A book that's not for skimming
Review: Take your time with this one. Singer has done a masterful job of analyzing the President's thinking and decision making--not all critical, by the way. The documentation is meticulous, the research is carefully done, and this is a far cry from the usual diatribe against an increasingly unpopular American leader.
Rating:
Summary: Compares rhetoric to action
Review: Takes a step by step approach -- comparing the rhetoric of bush (as highlighted by direct quotations from campaign stops, televised speeches, the state of the union, and Bush's own book 'A Charge to Keep'), with his actions as president, in the search of ethical consistency. An interesting read for anyone familiar with the format of normative or applied ethics essays (e.g. Singer applies arguments and justifications made against stem cell research to issues of the death penalty, the war in Afghanistan, etc.) Would definitely recommend it to any student of applied ethics.
Rating:
Summary: The Ethics of George W Bush
Review: The President of Good and Evil is about ethics. It takes on the task of reconstructing George W. Bush's moral philosophy from what he has said and done, and holds this moral philosophy to close scrutiny. Singer's purpose is the critical assessment of the President's ethical stance, which is shared by tens of millions of Americans in a wide range of subjects.The book's prominent feature is the comprehensive, rational analysis of the ethical defensibility of Bush's position. The facts and issues raised might not be novel to the informed public, which is not to say that the book is not well documented. Singer covers a vast amount of information relevant to the ethical issues addressed; he is not concerned with journalistic novelty but with the case that can be made by using what has already been properly documented. Singer's writing and logic are clear and straightforward. He is also very careful to asses Bush's position from a fair standpoint, generally centering his analysis on the best case that can be made for the President's ethical view. Singer does not confront his own utilitarian position with it, except where Bush himself has taken a seemingly utilitarian stance. The book is about Bush's moral philosophy, not Singer's. Most of the time, Bush seems to appeal to commonly accepted principles such as Human Rights and Just War theory, and it is in the light of them that the author builds his argument. Singer is concerned with the consistency of Bush's ethics and the honesty of his statements, or with how these compare to Bush's own actions. In the case of the President's frequent appeals to faith -religious or not- he dwells on the role of reason and argument in a Democracy, not questioning this faith itself but the role we should reasonably assign to it under a democratic decision making process. It might not be a surprise that the author often finds Bush's positions to be indefensible. The interest, however, lies not in the conclusion but in the comprehensive and well grounded argument that Singer makes, which is especially relevant because of the broad appeal of its premises and its rigorous logic.
Rating:
Summary: The Professor of Evil
Review: The Professor of Evil To say that this is an oxymoron of a book with many contradictory themes is an understatement. Here's Singer, who purports to be an expert in 'ethics', while at the same time holding ideas which undermine the very foundation of human life, telling us how unethical George Bush is. This is the same professor who believes that it is OK to kill babies after birth! For those unfamiliar with Singer's ideas, reading this book may make them think that he is a very astute follower of ethics, and that his criticisms of the Bush administration are legitimate. Nothing could be further from the truth. In order to prove the 'immorality' of Bush and co, Singer goes into overdrive over Iraq criticizing the administration for the decision it took, using, and get this, the 'Just War' doctrine of the Catholic church. Now Peter Singer is not known for his admiration of Catholicism, or indeed Christianity. For his philosophy (his "Singerism") is riddled with anti-Christian rhetoric. Singer fails miserably to rationalize the fact that Bush is in line with the Catholic church on very many issues including abortion and infanticide (Singer's pet project). Notwithstanding the reasons for the decision on Iraq, it seems oblivious to Singer (and his ilk) that Sadaam Hussein was responsible for the death of 3 million Iraqis, Iranian, Kurds, Assyrians, Turkmen and other voiceless victims. Does Singer 'the ethicist' care about these people? Does Singer care that Sadaam used to kill children in front of their parents to extract information from them? Does Singer care that Sadaam used chemical weapons on Kurds and Iranians killing and debilitating thousands? Of course not! As I will shortly explain, the good professor cares as much for human life as he cares for the life of an animal. Singer goes on to pick a fight with Bush's defense of the unborn and the defenseless. He compares the unborn to inanimate objects and claims that Bush is out of his league in defending unborn life (Singer the 'ethicist' become Singer the political scientist, citing 'state rights' as his reason), and herein lies Singer's main fumble. The self-refuting aspects of his philosophy come to the fore. Readers need to examine Singer's work in its totality. As Shawn Macomber from the American Spectator has said, "[t]hose who know Peter Singer's work understand there is something genuinely perverse about his passing judgment on anyone's ethics." Here's a man who tells us that absolute moral values do not exist, and yet contradicts himself by holding absolute (immoral) values including the absolute idea that infanticide is a choice parents can make. Singer would have us believe that he would only favor taking human life, if the concerned human being wanted to end his/her life. And yet he contradicts himself by promoting the death of babies, healthy or otherwise, obviously without their consent. His defense would be that babies are not actually human beings because they don't have the same capacities as adults do. Does that argument sound familiar? It ought to, because the very same argument has been made by racists the world over, legitimating their hatred of other human beings by claiming them to be non-human. In any case, how can Singer make the _absolute_ moral judgment that babies are not human, given that according to his philosophy, absolute morals do not exist? In this book he rips Bush for not favoring legalized euthanasia. But who is Peter Singer to tell us what to do and what not to do? How could Singer claim that Bush cannot enforce his own belief system upon others, because absolute morality is a myth, and yet at the same time attempt to singrism's own flavor of morality upon the rest of us? Singer first needs to find the plank in his own eye, before criticizing Bush and others. Sure, he looks like a nice guy, he wears a nice suit and neck-tie, but make no mistake about it, if Singer's ideas ever get to see the light of day, there will be real suffering and oppression. I would prefer an idiotic president, than an intellectual who would destroy millions of lives if given the chance. After all, Pol Pot was a nice intellectual too.
Rating:
Summary: Still relevant...even after the election
Review: This is the first Peter Singer book I have read, and I now plan to read more. Unlike a lot of anti-Bush books that appeared before the election, I believe this one is still worth reading. It retains its value because it focuses on ethics, morals, and philosophical thought (or the lack thereof), not simply politics. Singer doesn't come out and shout, "Bush is lying!" or "Bush is wrong!...". He instead uses several methods to point out inconsistencies between the president's words and deeds. I believe that the result will more than stand up to any objective review, and may serve to change the opinions of an open-minded reader on any number of the subjects addressed. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in philosophy, ethics, political science, or current events.
Rating:
Summary: Out of touch with morality
Review: Whether or not Bush is a good or bad president is a heavily debated issue, which I don't want to talk about. Singer obviously doesn't like Bush, which is his right, but does he go about it the right way? Is Bush evil? The answer to that depends on which moral system is the correct moral system, assuming that there is a true moral system out there (if there is no absolute good or evil, then he certainly cannot be called evil). If you examined his decisions based on the christian morality of George W. Bush, then he is likely one of the most moral presidents that America has ever known. Other systems of morality may show him in a less then favourable light. When we die, we will no for sure which religion/worldview is correct, and then we will be better able to judge his character and actions.
I also feel it is important to note that Singer is someone who lacks an intelligent grasp on morality and ethics, and if any of his statements turn out to be acurate, it would be by pure chance rather than any of his own rational thinking.
Rating:
Summary: A Heavyweight Review of a Lightweight President
Review: You don't have to follow the news closely to see the inconsistencies in Bush's policies. But Singer's book reveals these inconsistencies to be far more insidious than they appear at first glance. The President of Good and Evil is a heavyweight treatment of a lightweight President. Thinking along these lines, there's a reason that heavyweight boxers aren't allowed to step into the ring against lightweight opponents. The results would be too brutal to witness. Reading this book offers a similarly distasteful experience. But it brings a level of insight into the Bush presidency that is unmatched.
| 
