Rating: 
Summary: This book [is bad]!
Review: Kevin Phillips needs to give it up, reflect on his past with Tricky Dicky Nixon and remember a time when his books actually sold and didn't just have a fake high rating perpetrated by some shill who sits in front of his pc all day, writing stupid reviews and then hitting helpful on his own five star reviews and unhelpful on anybody who tells the truth about this garbage and gives it a 1 star.Phillips, you owe me a star. 1 star is too much for this garbage.
Rating:
Summary: I never thought of O'Niel as a fool
Review: Actually, just thought he was very ineffective at his job...untill I read this worthless tome. Now I know he is a fool. And still was ineffective at his job. He should thank Bush for keeping him as long as he did. Perhaps O'Niel can get a job as a janitor at the White House. He definitely has no career as a writer.
Rating: 
Summary: Insider Exposes His Own Flaws
Review: Mr. O'Neill now wishes to distance himself from his own book. Suskind continues to say it is "our" book when we know he took the internal memoranda and fictionalized the situation to fit his needs to sell a book. Lawence Lindsay and others in Wall St Journal op-ed pieces have said the although Mr. O'Neill is a nice guy, he did NOT understand the vast DIFFERENCE between policy development and the ministerial functions of a department head. Mr. O'Neill has told us more about himself than the Bush Administration. He was a poor fit for the job and being fired does not sit well with big egos. I hope he enjoys more trips with Bono. They have a future together.
Rating: 
Summary: Why is anybody surprised?
Review: Given his disastrous governorship and his bumbling persona on the presidential campaign and in the White House, Bush 43's incompetence as POTUS should come as no surprise. This book merely confirms what anyone with half a brain should have anticipated from the beginning of Bush's introduction to the public. WOULD SOMEONE, ANYONE, WHO HAS A COGENT, RATIONAL BASIS ON WHICH TO DISAGREE WITH O'NEIL'S OBSERVATIONS PLEASE SPEAK UP? Like O'Neil, I believe that rational debate, as opposed to the chanting of ideological mantras, is the best route towards effective policy. These Amazon reviews, replete with GOP critics who obviously have not read the book and can barely spell, are an illustration of this truism. As for entertainment value, I highly recommend the book. I had a hard time putting it down and finished the last three-quarters of it at about 2 in the morning.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent read
Review: Paul O'Neill, veteran Washington insider and corporate exec learns the hard way that most of the Bush administration is uninterested in following rational policy, Wonderfully written by Ron Suskind. This book will fill in many of the blanks for anyone interested in what's been happening to our government.
Rating:
Summary: A rare event: better even than the news coverage
Review: Usually when I read a book that has gotten this much press, I find that the press coverage had all the good parts. This book is an exception, and exceptional. It is fascinating, and terrifying, and a great read. I already hated the Bush White House, but reading about how it functions like a dysfunctional corporation was truly eye-opening.
Rating: 
Summary: WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?
Review: I've read this book. I'm not going to write a 1000 page critique of this. The book is well written and gives someone the inside scoop of what is going on in the Bush administration AS HE SEES IT IN HIS OWN REALITY. If you are a Bush hater, this is a brilliant account of a diseased administration. Also, this man would be your hero. If you are a Bush lover, this is a deluded account of a man that was fired by this administration for incompetance and stupidity. He is a traitor and a classless fool to the Bush supporters. That is specifically why this book is more of a novel than fact. How do you know that his account is accurate. You don't. How do you know his account is a fantasy. You don't. I would read the book, and I'm glad I bought it, because it is an election year, and this book will be remembered as a part of the folklore of this country, but as far as using it as a benchmark for an historical record of this administration, this is better classified as a novel.
Rating:
Summary: Gets you mad
Review: This is another one of those books that makes you upset if you read it. I mean, can this stuff be true? Read the part about the reasons we went to the war in Iraq! OK, I'm not an expert to say what actually happened or not, but if this is true I think certain people (initials GWB) should be in big trouble! As and American I hope sucha terrible set of accusations cannot be true.But I don't know, Paul O'Niel has no reason to lie.
Rating:
Summary: An Important Book
Review: This book provides riveting descriptions of how decisions are made in the Bush White House. It effectively illustrates the dangers of letting politics take precedence over good policy. It shows the dangers of having a president that lacks the intellectual curiosity to be a good leader. The book describes concrete examples of how the catering to special interest groups is removing all debate, all intellect, and, as a result -- all of the public interest out of the policy-making process. And it is all backed up by the reality of the bad policy and soaring deficits we see today. After reading the book there was no doubt in my mind Mr. O'Neill's motivations were not sour grapes. That is not his M.O.. Instead it seemed very clear to me he simply went above the fray, above the partisianship, and told the truth. Something so rare today that it can't be seen for what it is. Thank you Mr. O'Neill. You've done a great service to your country.
Rating:
Summary: Ideology Rules in the Bush White House
Review: 'The President was caught in an echo chamber of his own making, cut off from everyone other than a circle around him that's tiny and getting smaller and in concert on everything ' a circle that' keeps him away from the one thing he needs most: honest, disinterested perspectives about what's real and what the hell he might do about it' (page 293). Though these are Suskind's words, they clearly express Paul O'Neil's view of the Bush White House and the frustration that propelled him to cooperate with Suskind. The circle that Suskind alludes to is a clique of arch conservatives who view policy through a narrow lens of ideology. For them, the lens is incapable of focusing in on any circumstance or any set of facts that could possibly alter their preconceived view of the world. This is particularly apparent when it comes to policy on taxes, the environment and Iraq. Suskind makes it very clear that the Bush administration was driven by ideology from the start. Case in point' no questions were asked of Paul O'Neill, the brand new Secretary of the Treasury, regarding the impact and/or benefits of tax cuts. The decision had already been made. Even today, three years later, Bush continues to push for permanent tax cuts even though we have moved from huge surpluses to huge deficits ' facts are a mere inconvenience for ideologues. In another example, Suskind points to Christie Whitman (head of the EPA) who was not consulted either in the development of policy regarding global warming or the Kyoto agreement. She presumed that Bush would abide by his campaign promises to address global warming ' had even made pronouncements to that effect after assuming office - only to be told that it was being abandoned. Global warming was no longer a real threat and there was no need to limit carbon dioxide emissions. Case closed! George Bush, nor those who cautiously encircle him, is not the least bit interested in getting input or advice from those who might disagree or offer alternatives or caution against overdoing things. Meetings are staged, comments prescreened and invitees are limited to those with similar points of view. Why address opposing viewpoints when the decision had already been made? As Suskind puts it in reference to developing policies on global warming and energy, 'Generating fresh analysis might undercut various ideological positions' (page 104). Why bother? Most frightening is Bush foreign policy. It too has been driven by pre-set positions rather than hard information on the ground. Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are clear examples. At the first meeting of the National Security Council, Bush had already decided to disengage from the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and to focus on Iraq. Again, few questions were asked. He had evidently made up his mind. Getting rid of Saddam was the priority at the first two or three NSC meetings (much to the initial surprise of at least Powell ' Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice seemed to have been in on it.) Why would this be just about the only subject discussed at the very first meetings when there was no pressing issue involving Iraq at that time? Why were so few questions asked? Only recently (1/19/04), the New York Times reported that Bush will not extend the 9/11 commission even though they will have to rush and may not finish the report. First, they stalled in getting the commission formed and now they are cutting it short. Does it look like Bush wants to examine facts in order to develop effective policy for the future or are facts inconvenient impediments to a pre-determined set of policies that they will implement come what may? As Bush said when he responded to a reporter who asked about the absence of WMD in Iraq ' 'Does it really make a difference?' Apparently not in the Bush White House!
| 
