I rolled this review through my head a lot while I was reading it. It's a great book and has a lot of detailed anecdotes about being in various areas of the Secret Service, but there are two major flaws.
The first is not the fault of the author, but of his publisher, St. Martin's Press. Whoever edited this book was sleeping on the job. There are numerous typographical errors and malapropisms that simply make no sense. There are also a fair number of passages that simply needed tighter editing because they repeat themselves. The most glaring error was the mention of "patricians" between toilets -- presumably this was meant to be "partitions."
The second flaw with this book is that, to the author, anything "liberal" is synonymous with something bad. This flaw shows up early in the book and never goes away and as a result, it damages his credibility heavily from the very beginning. Every time he describes a communication breakdown or issue with a staffer or politician, I can't help but wonder "Is this how it happened? Did it happen because of his bias? Is he telling the story truthfully?"
A great example of this tendency shows up later in the book, when he's describing one of his first major assignments on the protection detail for Geraldine Ferraro, then a democratic Vice President candidate. His description of the staffer is clearly biased:
"He was in his late fifties and dressed as one would expect an older liberal intellectual to dress: baggy pants, rumpled tweet sport coat, wrinkled button-down shirt, shoes that had not seen polish since JFK." He's clearly linking "older liberal intellectual" with the idea of "messy and unkempt."
He goes on to say "[the staffer] looked as if he had just stepped out of a Berkeley political science classroom where had had been teaching socialism was superior to capitalism."
It would be enough to get the point across that he looked slovenly; there's no need to associate the staffer with "liberal intellectuals" or make the uncalled-for association with someone who's supposedly anti-US. But the author doesn't stop there! He goes on to call this staffer "my Timothy Leary clone."
Timothy Leary was famous for his experiments with LSD and was once labeled "the most dangerous man in America."
Really? All this in the space of a page for a staffer who looks sloppy?
The author has similar things to say about Clinton staffers, with relatively objective anecdotes about things they did to impede his job on the PPD filled out with needlessly derogatory references that make it absolutely clear that he considers these people worthless, immature scum -- and that any good they did was all because of him and other people like him on the PPD.
These kinds of aspersions make me doubt the veracity of a lot of his accounts that involve any kind of interpersonal friction. In these cases, it's almost always "their" fault, with little thought about how he could have done things better.
This stands in stark contrast to Joseph Petro's account of his own experiences on the PPD.
For example, both books relate incidents where host countries suddenly change the agreement at the last minute to the detriment of the protectee's safety.
In Petro's case, the host country changes the agreement as the protectee is arriving at the airport. Petro understands that his protectee's safety is paramount; he explains to the representative of the host country that if the agreement is not followed, the protectee will not disembark and will leave the country. The protectee leaving would be a major loss and the representative understands that and capitulates, resulting in the restoration of the original agreement.
Emmett's case is similar: the protectee is arriving at the airport and the host country has changed the details of the agreement, reducing the protectee's safety. Emmett contends that it's impossible to change plans and that the protectee cannot abandon the host country; he instead opts to put himself and his men in danger to anticipate violence. The protectee arrives in this situation with markedly less safety.
Emmett's entire book is focused more on the physical, violent side of the secret service. It's a remarkably different view from Petro's book -- Petro focuses on risk management and reduction. He uses soft skills to reduce risk where Emmett seems to prefer a wall of flesh and steel.
They're both different sides of the same agency in different generations, but I can't help but think of Emmett's approach, lack of introspection, and apparently poor communication skills as being a major detriment to his job in the PPD. Similarly, I wonder that so many of his transfers were motivated simply because he was fit and able.
All of that having been said, this book was informative and helped round out my view of the Secret Service, so I consider it time well spent despite any misgivings I have about the author's communication skills. I would definitely recommend this to anyone who enjoys more conservative writing, and hesitantly recommend this to anyone else who wants to learn more about the physical side of the Secret Service in the late 80s and 90s who can ignore the author's bias.