Killing Reagan by Bill O'Reilly (2015-10-22) (2024)

The pages just zoomed by for me in Bill O'Reilly's KILLING REAGAN.

I enjoyed reading about REAGAN'S younger years as an actor, his time as California Governor and the interesting road that first led him into politics and to ultimately ending the Cold War.

RONALD REAGAN was the 40th president of the United States and one tough old guy who survived a near death assassination attempt only two short months into his 8 year presidency that began in January, 1981. He had two marriages, four children, loved horses, his Rancho del Cielo and of course, had a great love of his country.

There are many interesting tidbits throughout this book about his relationship with the love of his life Nancy, the tumultuous relationship with their children, ghostly sightings of past presidents in the White House and the possible reasons for his decline into the world of dementia.

Learn more about Rawhide, Rainbow and Stagecoach here as well as many actor's of the time (loved John Wayne's line) and other surprising historical data.

Absorbing, enlightening and informative.

Ronald Wilson Reagan --- February 6, 1911 - June 5, 2004

High in sugars & low in nutrients, "Killing Reagan" is a pop biography of Ronald Reagan. It's a collection of often irrelevant anecdotes, recorded dialogues, personal quirks and gossip about the former President. The writing style is sensationalistic, almost each sentence dripping with drama, sugar-coated with suspense, and puffed up with fantastic hyperboles.

Yes, there is an effort to paint a portrait of the "man" Ronald Reagan, and the reader does get an overall sprinkle of his personality. Also, the book is really gripping, in fact it reads just like a Ken Follett thriller... but is that how a history book should sound like? You keep plowing through it as if it was a bag of popcorn, but the subject is handled with disappointing superficiality.

The actual historical content is thinner than what you can find on Wikipedia under "Ronald Reagan". At some points it felt like watching one of those "history documentaries" where the narrator constantly tries to get an "Ohhhhhh!" from the audience, speaking in a deep movie-trailer voice.

We find out how Reagan liked his eggs cooked, his feet rubbed, we read about his extra-marital affairs, all very accurate and factual information, but never an analysis (even high-level) of the things that really mattered, like for example his economic policies. We get a lot of word-by-word dialogues, everyone's jokes are reported with obsessive accuracy, even old SNL sketches are quoted multiple times.

Political speeches are presented as having far more history-changing power and overall importance than what they actually do.

So, yeah. Not good if you're looking for serious history.

O'Reilly once complained that Americans (the masses) don't read many history books, because they are not interested. I wonder if this excessively dramatic and sensationalistic style has been utilized to "make history taste better" to the masses of readers who would otherwise find it boring.

Sure, this is a splendid selling strategy (this book sold like hot cakes). But this is the equivalent of pumping high fructose corn syrup in every food to make it more appetizing (as they actually do), when in reality it's the eater/consumer that needs to be better educated.

If you're ok with reading the script for an entertaining 30 minutes documentary about Reagan's life that doesn't even scratch the surface, then this book is for you. If you're looking for a real history book, look elsewhere.

Some people love him; others hate him. But one thing is certain about Bill O’Reilly. The popular host of the O’Reilly Factor makes history interesting. The “no-spin” Irish-American journalist began a series of killing books, with the publication of Killing Lincoln. This effort was followed by Killing Kennedy, Killing Jesus, and Killing Patton. O’Reilly’s latest offering, Killing Reagan has sparked a bit of controversy, since unlike the other characters, Reagan was not murdered.

Readers will not be surprised that at the heart of this book is an insiders look at the assassination attempt of President Reagan. The would be executioner, John Hinckley Jr. is rightly portrayed as a psycho-path drifter who will go to any length, including killing the President of the United States to impress the actress, Jodi Foster.

But readers may be surprised at how O’Reilly portrays the President. The author carefully paints a portrait of the 40th president and includes details that are making some readers uncomfortable and even upset. Make no mistake: the king of no-spin in unwilling to leave any stone unturned in this book.
Apart from some of the more controversial elements of the book, O’Reilly includes fascinating discussion about Reagan’s relationship with Nancy, staff members, Mikhail Gorbachev, and of course, the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher.

This book will draw criticism from liberals. But it will also invite the critical response of conservative who revere Ronald Reagan. But it is clear that O’Reilly writes as an unbiased journalist here. He has no bone to pick. He has no axe to grind. He merely desires a telling of the facts. The end result is a fascinating read that ultimately honors the 40th President of the United States. Killing Reagan is a memorial to one of America’s great leaders. It is a vivid reminder of the importance of freedom. This is the story of Ronald Wilson Reagan - patriot, promoter of liberty, and President of the United States of America.

f*ck Bill O'Reilly. The man is an egotistical asshole.

History News Network, 10-22-15

On March 31, 1981, John Hinckley, a deranged loner obsessed with the actress Jodie Foster, fired six shots outside the Washington Hilton, striking a member of the United States Secret Service, a District of Columbia police officer, and grievously wounding the White House Press Secretary. Hinckley’s sixth and final bullet ricocheted off the presidential limousine and landed in the chest of Ronald Reagan. The president, who had turned seventy a few weeks earlier, very nearly died that day. While recovering from surgery at George Washington University Hospital, he wrote an eloquent letter to Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev calling attention to the two men’s shared responsibility in preventing a nuclear war.

Surviving an assassination attempt probably reinforced Reagan’s faith in the concept of a destiny -- both for himself and his country. Minus that bullet, would his presidency have proceeded in a fundamentally different way? I doubt it. Still, it is a worthwhile question which Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard do not actually explore in Killing Reagan: The Violent Assault That Changed a Presidency. The latest installment in a tetralogy that has propelled the authors to first and seventh place on Amazon.com’s “Most Popular Authors in History” category, Killing Reagan has recently generated criticism. The October 16, 2015 edition of the Washington Post featured a scathing op-ed by Craig Shirley, Kiron K. Skinner, Paul Kengor, and Steven F. Hayward, titled: “What Bill O’Reilly’s New Book on Ronald Reagan Gets Wrong About Ronald Reagan.”

One does not necessarily have to be enamored of the Gipper to agree with these scholars, who have authored or edited nineteen books about him. “In researching and writing this book,” Bill O’Reilly writes on page 290, “Martin Dugard and I were extremely careful to use only material we could confirm through at least two sources, and even then we tried to be very fair in presenting facts that might put certain individuals in a bad light.” Both halves of that sentence are suspect. O’Reilly and Dugard do not employ individual citations, referring the reader instead to a brief note on sources at the end of the book. The tawdry anecdotes about Reagan’s sex life and Nancy’s temper are probably from Kitty Kelley’s Nancy Reagan, the Unauthorized Biography, yet the authors imply that they could just as well be from the Miller Center’s landmark Oral History Project on the Reagan Presidency -- which they definitely are not.

The relationship between cause and effect is just as blurry. During the 1964 presidential campaign, Reagan stumped for Barry Goldwater and delivered a televised address, “A Time for Choosing.” That speech, the authors write, “will not only change the course of Ronald Reagan’s life but also make him a marked man.” (page 57) In developing a parallel narrative on the life of John Hinckley, however, the authors stress that he had targeted Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter and the United States Capitol but did not really think about Reagan until the day of their fateful encounter. How, then, did Reagan’s 1964 speech make him a “marked man”? In that speech and in many of his public statements and now-available private correspondence, Reagan expressed his desire both to eradicate communism and abolish nuclear weapons. Yet the authors ignore that evidence, perhaps because it does not fit with their argument that the March 1981 assassination attempt changed everything. “The former leader of the free world, the man who defeated Soviet communism and ended the Cold War, is dead,” they write about 2004. What is the takeaway message of this book -- that the Soviet Union would still be around were it not for John Hinckley? That would certainly be a novel addition to the historiography on the end of the Cold War.

Killing Reagan’s prose is on par with its logic. “So it is that John Warnco*ck Hinckley Jr. is born in an obsolete mental hospital,” the authors write on page 60. “At first glance, the baby appears to be completely normal.” Who is glancing? Were the authors there? We don’t find out, in any case; that’s the end of chapter 6. “Reagan is firmly in command,” the authors write on page 153, to close chapter 16. “Or so it seems to those around him. Little does he know the violence that lies ahead.” I do not envy authorship of those sentences.

I also find it puzzling that Bill O’Reilly, a highly articulate foil to liberals, would sign off on a book hastily written that shows such disdain for Ronald Reagan and his family. My favorite part of the book is the use of a trio of American flags as section breaks. I also liked the handsome maps with an overlay of events on Chappaquiddick Island in July 1969 and in the South Atlantic in April - June 1982. I do not know what these maps and chapters surrounding them have to do with Reagan and the end of the Cold War, but I hope that cartographer returns for whatever is next. Perhaps O’Reilly and Dugard, authors of Killing Jesus, Killing Kennedy, and Killing Patton, will take a break from Killing and embark on a new series. In the meantime, those eager for Living Reagan ought to check out the Reagan Foundation’s website, where you can read -- for free -- the fortieth president’s daily schedule and personal diaries.

- See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article...

O’Reilly keeps knocking these things out of the park. David McCullough, no. But these books tend to be factually interesting, new information bought to light that helps explain a personality. All of them are well researched, and that’s the point. “Killing Reagan” is not necessarily flattering; in fact it’s brutally honest about Reagan’s personal traits. And Nancy is excoriated, but rightfully so. Regardless, whether you are a Reagan fan or not, it’s a nostalgic trip into America’s past when Reagan’s optimism - “It’s morning in America again” - was contagious and the country believed that the depressing Carter years - the Iran hostage crisis, long gasoline lines - would finally be behind us.

This was good, but not as good as the past books. I just didn't find it to be as interesting. And I loved Reagan. I was also extremely disappointed that Bill did not narrate this one as he has the others in the past.

Written in the same format as O'Reilly's other 'Killing Series' books. I give this three and a half stars. A good look at Reagan's life and presidency in a quick read. I haven't read any other Reagan bios, but have visited the Reagan Library several times including the permanent Reagan exhibits. The display on Hinckley's assassination attempt includes two of his weapons. Amazing that something that almost looks like a toy caused so much carnage. The library is an amazing place, but writing about that isn't the purpose of this review.

The book goes beyond the somewhat sanitized presentation of the library by getting into more personal interactions, such as Nancy Reagan's efforts to exert control over White House staff as well as other personal relationships and stories. As in the other books in the series I enjoyed the footnotes that either gave more explanation, or revealed other details. O'Reilly tries to make the case that the injuries and resulting operations due to the assassination attempt may have led to his Alzheimer's diagnosis--hence being able to include this title in this series. If you're interested, read it and you be the judge!

O'Reilly & Dugaard have hit another one out of the park with their in-depth analysis of the life and death and presidency of Ronald Reagan.

Well, not as good or (in my opinion of course) as well "done" as their earlier works. I like at least a couple of Mr O'Reilly's and Mr. Dugard's books much more than this one.

First of all if you've avoided this book because you fear it may be a "white-wash" of President Reagan...don't worry. if anything it's closer to a hatchet job than a white-wash. That said Mr. O'Reilly and Mr. Dugard note that they have used only sorces they could verify.

Okay but it seems to me...Note I said "it seems to me"...that there was some picking and choosing about what to report. Georg Will (whom it must be noted O'Reilly insulted a bit in the book) has said that this book would "distort the understanding" of the Reagan Presidency. *(http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/11/...). It looks as though they chose to relate the worst possibly examples of 8 years Mr Reagan was in office. We get "hints" (actually pretty blatant and open insinuations) that the authors buy the idea that President Reagan was "slipping". They leave the impression that the Presidency was continually in chaos.

Sadly also the actual "supposed" subject of the book gets less ink than the somewhat condescending accounts of the Presidency.

Look I lived through this, I remember the debates mentioned. I remember Iran Contra (and the President's acceptance of responsibility).

I have to say that it seems to me the book fails in it's account of John Hinckley and his assassination attempt (including it's aftermath). The books also seems "to me" to be at best misleading and at worst somewhat biased.

My opinion of course throughout, that said if you don't care for Mr. Reagan don't worry about this book leaning in his favor. It goes the other way so far it just seems intentional.

Though I can't figure why...I guess decide for yourself.

Few people dislike Bill O'Reilly more than me, but his 'co author' is a thoroughly entertaining and talented historian. I found this history of Reagan to be quite fair and fact-based--unlike Bill's TV show. One disappointment was the complete omission of Reagan's actions (or rather inactions) during the AIDS crisis. Overall, though, a lot learned from all angles. If you'd like a quick and enjoyable history of a highly fascinating presidency (and assassination attempt) this is good stuff.

This is a dime novel among presidential biographies. While the story was fascinating, it was poorly written. The thesis that ties this random assortment of historical anecdotes together is finally found on p. 285: "The 1981 assassination attempt could also have played a pivotal role in Ronald Reagan's decline."

Particularly frustrating was the content of the footnotes. It was as if the authors did not want to cut out any of their research, so they dumped it all in the notes. The most random details were included, such as a list of the presidents who visited the Mission Inn and then the odd comment that "notably, Kennedy is the only Democrat" (49). How is that notable? Does the Inn have a partisan reputation for excluding Democrats? This unsubstantial but attention-getting writing style was prevalent throughout the book.

I used to like Reagan...until I read this book. O'Reilly and Dugard seemed to revel in digging up as much dirt as possible on as many people as possible. If someone posed nude or had an affair, then it was sure to make its way into this book. It was disappointing to learn of Reagan's many affairs and Nancy's obsession with astrology. Nancy in particular was cast in a negative light. She was portrayed as manipulative, abusive, mean-spirited, and vengeful.

Though poorly written, this book was a fascinating and fast read. But now I'm looking forward to reading a real biography of our 40th president.

[I wrote this brief review without consulting any other reviews. But afterwards, I enjoyed reading this well-written piece from the National Review: http://bit.ly/1ogP1Tn.]

Amazing book, amazing story about one of the most influential and best Presidents in our nation's history. Yes, I am very biased on the topic. I came to this great nation from Soviet Union in 1979 and even though I couldn't vote yet, but witnessed amazing historical events taking place while being in United States. I witnessed American pride through Reagan presidency and decline of the super power, break down of fabric of the awful nation that my family left behind.

Bill O'Reilly once again delivers great story in fantastic, easy to follow, format. I just love historical lessons and how it is told in the Killiing series. Having read already Lincoln, Patton and Kennedy in the same series, I was very happy to learn more than I knew before about Reagan. O'Reilly delivers facts and honesty. Even though amazing character and strong convictions in fighiting communism and making America great, you learn that as all of us, Reagan was a human and made some mistakes, which makes him even more real and more amazing. Everyone of us makes mistakes, but it is how we deal with owning up to them and going forward trying to do better is what makes our character. Ronald Reagan as a president and as a American private citizen, had that character. One of the most charismatic people to occupy White House in the 20th century. A story is nothing but amazing and everyone can take away something from Killing Reagan.

I knew a lot about President Reagan, but I learned so much more and greatful to Mr O'Reilly for delivering us this amazing masterpiece. Another fantastic book that has been added to my home library and information added to my knowledge base.

Snide and classless

Nowhere did I find a satisfactory explanation by the authors for including this book in the Killing series. There was nothing clear to show how the attempt "changed a presidency" and in several places contrived to refer to how much longer Reagan had to live, referring simply to his natural death many years later in his 90s. Instead, this book came across to me as a series of anecdotes, many unrelated, and the more unsavory the better. While there were some interesting new historical facts related, most were snide denigrating not only the Reagans but others as well. I get it that the information was validated but most of it was tasteless and classless. More appropriate for the National Enquirer.

Of the five "Killing" books I have now read, Reagan seemed to move slower than the previous four. Still, fact based and well written, the book stuttered here and there.

The Prologue, at perhaps all of two pages, choked me right up. Who would of thought one could start a book with tears wanting to form. O'Reilly and Dugard can script brilliance when it suits their purpose.

I await the arrival of Killing Patton, which is in the mail.

This was a very factual history of Reagan, I have never been a big fan of the man, but this was an interesting historical account of that time in history.

this was so silly 😭😭literally the most unserious biography ever

Some on the Right, including several of Reagan's family members and former staff, go so far as to call this book "garbage" and a "political smear." Bill O'Reilly claims that it is a "laudatory book" and "100% accurate."
I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
I can't blame O'Reilly for wanting to share as many surprising facts about the former president as possible. And, considering the high esteem in which Reagan is generally held, it makes sense that people are less aware of his shortcomings than they are his successes. KILLING REAGAN is a nice reminder that even the greatest men in history were all-too-human and fallible, and I definitely have a better understanding of who Reagan was after reading this book. However, for those who have little knowledge of Reagan, KILLING REAGAN is not the place to start. Not because it contains errors (THE WASHINGTON POST seems to have uncovered 7 mistakes, 2 of which are relatively minor), but because the focus of the book is skewed in favor of the more "juicy" bits of Reagan's life. More time is spent discussing Nancy Reagan's reliance on astrologers than explaining how Ronald Reagan revived the American economy. Sure, the book credits him with doing so, but readers are given nothing in the way of specifics. Not that O'Reilly intentionally tried to do Reagan a disservice, mind. As far as I can tell, he simply considered "Reaganomics" to be common knowledge (read: boring) and was in a hurry to get back to the quirkier stuff.
But the real bone of contention about this book is the supposition that Reagan's Alzheimer's first became apparent during his presidency, despite not being officially diagnosed until six years after he left office. O'Reilly states that Reagan, during his presidential reign, had "good days and bad days"--language usually reserved for talking about someone who ought to be in a nursing home. O'Reilly feels that Reagan's success as president is all the more impressive in light of the inner battle he was being forced to wage, whereas O'Reilly's critics consider it the highest insult to claim that Reagan was operating on anything less than his full mental faculties.
The evidence O'Reilly uses to support his argument is weak in the extreme, and it is here that the book loses credibility. It certainly doesn't help that O'Reilly never bothers to source anything, forcing readers to either accept or reject his information out of hand. All of O'Reilly's other KILLING books so far have dealt with actual--rather than attempted--assassinations, and I'd be willing to bet that O'Reilly just couldn't resist the notion that Hinckley's bullet contributed to Reagan's death, either by triggering or perhaps accelerating his mental deterioration. The way O'Reilly looks at it, Hinckley really DID kill Reagan--though it took a very long time for it to finally happen. It's an attractive thought in light of maintaining the theme of these KILLING books...but the evidence just isn't there, despite O'Reilly's arguments to the contrary.
KILLING REAGAN suffers from taking too narrow a perspective on things. O'Reilly didn't want to interview the people still living who were close to Reagan, because he worried their opinions would be biased in Reagan's favor. So instead, he only interviewed people whose opinions about Reagan could be considered middle-of-the-road. At first glance, this might seem like a good idea, but there are definitely serious drawbacks to this approach. Imagine doing a book on Hitler and only interviewing people who thought he was "like, whatever."
But if anyone gets the shaft in this book, it's Nancy Reagan, who O'Reilly portrays as a modern Lady Macbeth. The way O'Reilly tells it, you'd think no one ever thought kindly of her--at least not until they saw the way she cared for her husband while on his deathbed. Couldn't O'Reilly have dug up at least ONE person with something nice to say about Nancy?
On a final note, I've always considered the KILLING series to be "creative non-fiction," rather than pure history. Since I've always regarded them as such, I don't feel scandalized the way other people do when it comes out they contain errors. That being said, I consider KILLING REAGAN to be the most problematic of the KILLING series and have given it a lower rating accordingly. Still, it's worth reading to get a broader understanding of Reagan, as well as some insight into the mindset of his would-be assassin.

I really enjoy the O'Reilly/Dugard Killing series. Like all the others (save Killing Jesus, which I haven't yet read), this has been a fascinating look into a historical period. His series have so many critics but I am not an expert in politics or history to have an opinion on this. For me the books are informative, fun to read, make history a little easier to understand, and make me want to learn more about a lot of the things mentioned within. Are they accurate? I don't know, but if I wanted to verify the facts, I'd be ordering more books as backup to check what is true and what isn't. I have to assume that there are more accuracies than not. I'm sure the authors do their research and the book has to pass some scrutiny before being printed.

I was a child when Reagan was President. I remember hearing about some of the events mentioned in the book, but being a child, these events had no direct effect on me. So how fascinating for me to read about the Falkland Islands, the Cold War, Iran Contra affair, the hostage situation, Grenada--the list is just too long. I appreciate the interest these books spark in me to learn more about these historical events.

The book contains a lot of Hollywood trivia/gossip, Reagan's marriage to Nancy, his relationship with his children, Reagan's feelings about some political players, his involvement in outing communists in Hollywood, the Reagan's use of an astrologer during their presidency. It also covers Reagan's health and deterioration due to Alzheimer's. All of it just fascinating to read and I wish there had been more detail at times.

I only wish they had covered a little more extensively on John Hinckley Jr. This after all was about the attempt assassination of Reagan. There was never any follow up on Jodie Foster and how this affected her life or what her thoughts were on her stalker's motivations to assassinate a President in order to impress her. Also, has there been some kind of law applied to Presidential assassinations or attempts of put into effect? I find it hard to believe that someone could get away with this by reason of insanity. I would think these laws would be harsher. The impression I got from reading this is that Hinckley fooled everyone into thinking he was insane. He pretty much seems to be living a semi-cushy life with certain freedoms allowed and will soon be a free man. Should someone like this ever be set free?

Lots of reviews feel that Reagan was portrayed in a bad light but that's not what I took from this book. I think he came across as a great President and a beloved one by the majority. His flaws made him more human. His loyalty and patriotism and belief that America could be a great country stood out as some of his most admirable traits. And darn it if I didn't end up shedding a tear at the end of this book.

Extremely factual research and witness, but the style lacked here. The first person tensing used and redundant phrasing! Especially "the man with .... hours or years left" etc. It doesn't work for me within this modern event and celeb/ politico associations' Reagan biography. It seems, just my opinion, a lazy way to relate this strong ego and dynamic force for focus change. Domestic and foreign both absolutely. Living through this period, I found the writing style was off putting for the material covered. Effective monetary shift, foreign applications: all of those did not "grab" with that tensing tempo. This over used formula from past O'Reilly books which worked well for the 1800's or early 1900's does NOT work well with such a man of immense collective memory for all of the presently living and reading audiences. Also there are far, far more footnotes and living persons' witness statements on each page which makes that tensing used further troublesome. It does not flow to the particular details of each research input.

Nothing here surprised me. Not his private life, early years alliances and promiscuities, marriages or personal/ work related relationships. Modern Presidents are all essentially egomaniacs. NOT just my opinion. Nor did the health applications of reveal and witness within the Presidency years or those far after the Presidency years cause me any surprise.

O'Reilly is getting hammered by the Conservative base for "downing" and "dissing" the hero. Which occurs frequently in this book, btw. Reagan delegated. MUCH. Kudos to O'Reilly for doing so, for showing the practical dynamics of that marriage and all the cracks in the pedestal. It does little to change the American outcomes, especially in foreign policy. Good ones, indeed. The man aimed toward aspirations and inspirations and cemented some bridges that will last a century.

Yet another book by Bill O'Reilly and I'm definitely a fan. I've watched his show on Fox News occasionally and have been frustrated by how, as an interviewer, he tends to interrupt and talk over his guests. However, in his books he doesn't have that problem. They are all well researched and factual and while he does mention some things that are unproven he clearly identifies them as such. I learned a lot about the life of President Reagan and the assassination attempt including several back stories leading up to that day. Recommend for anyone who likes history and Americana.

Overall, the book reveals Reagan as a real man with real emotions and real weaknesses. In the process, the book makes him more human and even more amazing. This is a man who lived his ideals, worked hard to make this country great, and succeeded in doing just that. Along the way he made mistakes, and had lapses in judgement and memory ( as we all do as we age).

The fact that this man survived the bullet that almost killed him is remarkable, and I remember holding my breath that day; hoping we would not have to mourn the assassination of another president.

I did think it might have been nice to include something about his heartfelt address to the nation after the Challenger disaster--beautiful words that were delivered with obvious grief and sorrow. But, it would be impossible to include everything the man said and did during his presidency. This book was not written as a tribute to the man, but as an historical recounting of his life.

I don't believe this book denigrated President Reagan's legacy. On the contrary, I felt it celebrated his resilience and ability to carry on in his presidency with dignity and grace after a near-fatal shooting that would likely have much more negatively affected a lesser man. I think anyone who followed his presidency could see his failing health and mental acuity as he aged during his second term. However, this book also makes if very clear that he still had moments of brilliance--the Berlin Wall speech, negotiations with Russia, etc.

While he was governor of California, I was a resident there. I was working at the time for two retired Army generals, one of whom was the Chairman Emeritus for the Retired Association of the Army. They were executing a plan to plant a tree in the Angeles National Forest for each person who had died during the Viet Nam war and had invited the families of those who were able to attend to plant those seedling trees at a ceremony. Govenor Reagan volunteered to speak at this event in the forest and gave a beautiful presentatioin and greeted each of the families personally. It was such a heartwarming ceremony and I fell in love with this man and his humanity that day.

There was too much speculation and what seemed like only possible observations for me to rate this higher. It was, however, a quick easy read that made me think about Reagan's presidency in a different light. It just seemed a bit too much written to make it interesting for the reader, which made it seem less historically accurate.

This is a winner. I had a terrible time putting it down. Bill O'Reilly and Martin Dugard do such a great job bring history to life. I've read all 5 of the "Killing" books, but I can't really pick out a favorite because they are all great.

A great account of the life and presidency of Ronald Reagan.

I plucked this off my father's bureau as he lay dying and I siting by his bed. One of those serendipitous moments that happen ... . Anyway, I was surprised on the upside. My father was a big O'Reilly fan, me? not so much. The book opens with the Reagan / Carter debate of October 28, 1980 and the parallel of that time and that debate and Now (Trump / Clinton debate October 9, 2016) was stunning. The debate is actually the 1st chapter - the book begins with a prologue, which is Reagan's last moments, June 5, 2004, when he died. My father died the next day, October 10, 2016. I took the book home with me and read it. It's worth reading. It's not only about President Reagan, but the four presidents who came before him, and Reagan's assassin, John Hinckley Jr., obsession, mental illness, personality, and women, w/r/t how they influence and impact men. Good stuff.

Another great book in the killing series. I learned so much, especially about Nancy. The authors went out of their way to point out every weakness and flaw in the Reagans—so much so that it seemed to overpower the narrative. They overshot the goal of evenhanded. While the facts of Reagan’s early affairs were essential to history, some graphic details could have been omitted. Historical graphic language is also included. I was hoping for a little better treatment in this book.

I’ve read a decent amount of books on Ronald Reagan and this was one was completely different from all of them. It seemed more like a tell all, and just went through every fault he had throughout his whole entire life. It was interesting but I’m glad I didn’t buy it before I read it 😂. Also had a decent amount of language.

Dugard and O'Reilly struck upon an interesting and successful idea when they wrote their books on Lincoln and Kennedy. From there they could have explored some of the other interesting assassination's in history, but they instead focused the series on big names whether or not their deaths were killings. The seldom told assassination of McKinley or Garfied would probably be a heck of story, but who would buy the book, right? Julius Caesar? Archduke Ferdinand? What happened to Richard III's nephews?

For Patton they had to weave in a possible conspiracy by the Russians. I forgave it somewhat because I didn't know a lot about Patton and I found the condensed timeline of his last days very interesting. The Reagan book is an entertaining enough read with a few bits here or there I didn't know, but it tries to tie together his being shot with the Alzhemiers as if one brought on the other. Edmund Morris touched upon the idea in his controversial book Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan by saying Reagan was transfused with cold blood although that doesn't get mention here.

The authors therefore take things like Reagan's poor performance in his first debate against Mondale and his indifference to Ollie North running money to the Contras as a bridge. As if every low point in Reagan's subsequent life was the result of one day in 1981 slowly killing him 23 years later. Even if such a an idea contains an amount of truth the series is becoming too much of a gimmick that needs more speculation than history to tie it together. I'd like to see these guys stop chasing box office and find stories worth telling.

Killing Reagan by Bill O' Reilly has changed the way I view the Presidency. I rated this book a five out of five stars because it really goes in depth about specific parts of the Presidency. The book touches on Ronald Reagan's whole life, not just his actions as President of the United States. It talks about his movie career, his love life, and how he died because of Alzheimer's. I really enjoyed reading this book because it helps you understand just how hard and draining it is to be the President of the United States, and the daily duties that the President has to attend to. The book also touches on the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan by John Hinckley. The book mentions how Hinckley had a mental disease, and why he decided to try to kill the President. Overall, Killing Reagan by Bill O' Reilly was a very interesting read, and I would definitely recommend it to anyone who like history.