Rating: 
Summary: Reagan Redux?
Review: Reading Paul O'Neill's book on his experiences as Secretary of the Treasury in the Bush administration harkens memories of the Reagan White House. While Ronald Reagan, particularly in the latter period of his second term in the eighties, was criticized for being disengaged and letting others govern for him while he sought to maintain an effective image of the presidency, nobody went so far as to say, as O'Neill did regarding Bush, that walking into a meeting with him was like "talking to a blind man in a room with deaf people."It has been said of George W. Bush that, even if he receives a memo outlining important subject matter, he will ask that the two or three most important points be underlined, saving him the effort of reading the entire outline. The worst said about Reagan in a similar vein was that, when Secretary of State James Baker provided him with a fact sheet concerning an upcoming summit meeting with Russian president Mikhail Gorbachev, that he told him he had watched "The Sound of Music" on television instead of reading it. It appears that reports of Vice President Richard Cheney making major decisions in the Bush White House has more than a little substance behind it, considering revelations in this book confirming that view. For instance, pertaining to the second huge tax cut embraced by the White House, O'Neill stated that Bush initially expressed surprise, saying that he thought the "rich people" had received enough support through the initial tax cut. Cheney reportedly pressed the point for a second tax cut, indicating that it was important to grab the mantle and press the point further. O'Neill also writes about the basis for conflict with Iraq, and when Bush considered going to war. Confirming many other accounts asserting that the decision was made well before September 11, and that Cheney stood in the forefront of the effort, Bush then fell into line and planning commenced in earnest to confront Saddam Hussein. The issue arises as to whether O'Neill's disclosures embody revenge of a fired cabinet member. His detailed explanation of what occurred, however, appears credible, indicating that he was pushed out due to a fundamental policy difference with the Bush administration. As a former president of Alcoa who was aware of the need to maintain debt free footing to achieve success, he emphatically opposed a tax cut policy that could push America deeply into debt. Cheney and the administration's major players did not want someone who clashed with what they felt to be an imperative, a policy of tax cuts on the assumption that added revenue would prevent the arrival of huge deficits. The announcement that the administration is investigating whether O'Neill made available information from classified documents has probably achieved for him the same result as Fox Television's lawsuit against Al Franken. The added exposure amid controversy should push the book to greater heights of popularity with the mass market of the reading public.
Rating:
Summary: great book on the worst president in US history
Review: The story of how the metally challenged president Bush wanted war from day one in the white house is utterly amazing. How this guy could lie and mislead the nation into an illegal and immoral war is beyond me. I now know how the Germans were fooled into starting WWII by a certain 1930s leader. A sad, pathetic and sobering tale.
Rating: 
Summary: Much Ado About Nothing
Review: Paul O'Neill comes off as a disgruntled, fired ex-employee with an axe to grind. He has some less than flattering things to say about President Bush, but, as I recall, when he was fired by VP Cheney in 2002, the administration had a less than flattering opinion of Mr O'Neill. You might enjoy this book if you desperately believe that President Bush was planning the invasion of Iraq prior to 9/11 attacks and other assorted black helicopter conspiracy theories cooked up about Democrats since Bush since took office. It is interesting to note that the day after O'Neill's 60 Minutes interview about this book, he clarified and/or retracted a lot of what he said. Like I said in the begining, much ado about nothing. Save your money and buy a Beatles CD.
Rating:
Summary: Da Juice!
Review: "Don't trust the guy who we hired to work with our Administration at the highest level" - Whitehouse You know you just can't resist that!
Rating: 
Summary: Just read the damned book
Review: I will bet every dollar I have to my name that the majority of the single-star ratings are written by people who haven't even picked the book up, much less read it. If you're interested in insider-politics, then read this book. In fact, go and seek out everything ever written by Ron Suskind, because he's one of the best political journalists in the country. Here's another piece of advice: if you're interested in Bush's run-up to war, then watch the Frontline documentary on the same, and go pick up the current issue of the Atlantic Monthly, which details the entire run-up beginning on 9/12/2001, and shows how most if not all of what's gone wrong could have been avoided--especially since our own CIA and State Department predicted nearly all of it. But if you're interested in how this White House values crass political gain over sound policy for the country, then read this book along with Suskind's articles on Karen Huges and Karl Rove. You'll have a better understanding of who's running this country than all of the TV News broadcasts will tell you in a year. By the way, Suskind loses a star, but only because it's a dense read at times.
Rating: 
Summary: Fantabulous!
Review: Wow was this a great book! Every once in a while a book comes along that makes you want to shout good things out the window. This is that book! My rating system is different than most Amazon viewers. I don't give 5 stars unless it is absolutely out of this world. But this book was great.
Rating:
Summary: Scathing and scary, though not particularly surprising
Review: This book is a very detailed and well-researched account by a Pulitzer-Prize-winning author. It's a fast read (I got my copy at 8:00 this morning and at noon I'm halfway through), fueled by some of the shocking interactions and conversations that take place between O'Neill and the other key players, Bush and Cheney in particular. When discussing their policies (when O'Neill can actually get them to discuss them) these guys actually say things that indicate that they truly believe that there's no tomorrow; so who cares? And that's what makes this book a particular chiller. This book has engendered a lot of controversy, but READ it, exercise the brain God gave you, and decide for yourself how you feel about the revelations within.
Rating: 
Summary: A CEO's lament
Review: This book reveals which side of the fence you are on. If you dislike George W. Bush, you will like this book. If you like the president, you will not.
My comments are directed at fence sitters who really are curious about the current president. I would suggest you save your money unless you are prepared to read many more books about Bush.
Otherwise, you will get a lopsided, one-dimensional view. It's like relying on Tom Cruise's characterization of Nicole Kidman before deciding whether to date her. In messy divorces, awful things get said.
First, my own views.
I watched O'Neill closely as part of my job (media). He was a poor secretary. He made too many off-the-cuff remarks that angered other nations (example: chastising the Brazilians for corruption) or caused needless turbulence in financial markets. What's worse, he never learned from his many mistakes. Call him the anti-Robert Rubin.
On another level, I liked O'Neill. He is undoubtedly a decent and honest man, though such strengths were offset by his own pig-headedness and the former CEO's tendency to think he had all the answers.
Still, he was the Cabinet member who drew the most criticism in the largely liberal press. He was the odds-on favorite to be the first high-level departure. Liberal news entities such as Reuters and New Republic criticized him frequently. (Ironically, his biggest critics then are the ones most full of praise now. See: Paul Krugman).
And so his ouster came to pass. O'Neill had a tendency to insert foot in mouth and did not fully back Bush's policy. After he took office, he was quickly determined to be a free agent and not allowed into the inner circle. That's one reason Bush said little around him.
O'Neill's sharpest criticism involves tax cuts, steel tariffs and war in Iraq. Let's consider.
As former Bush economic advisor Larry Lindsey notes, Bush campaigned in 2000 on tax cuts. O'Neill knew of Bush's intentions.
Second, O'Neill was against the steel tariffs and complains that politics and ideology interfered. Gee, politics in the White House! Really, how could such a "smart" man be so naïve?
(An aside: O'Neill even complained that the Ford and Nixon administrations, where he previously worked, were more objective about domestic policy aims! That's priceless. Nixon approved price controls -- hardly a staple of GOP ideology or sound economic thinking).
Yes, the steel decision involved politics. The administration decided to try to save some American jobs and help Bush in swing states. Just like Clinton signed welfare reform - against the wishes of most of his party - to help Democrats with swing voters. Duh. It's how you win elections.
Was it the wrong decision? I'd say yes. Interestingly, Bush has been criticized by almost every Democratic candidate for reversing those tariffs after the WTO ruled against the U.S. They want the White House to unilaterally ignore an international ruling!
What's more, O'Neil confuses politics and ideology. GOP ideology supports free trade, not tariffs. Yet Bush rejected party ideology and instead took the politically pragmatic route.
Third, Iraq. Yes, the Bushies drew up a plan to remove Saddam. In fact, they reworked a plan initially created under Clinton. As former Clintonites noted, it is standard procedure for new administrations.
Yet there was absolutely no talk by Bush officials about trying to overthrow Hussein before 9/11. At the time, Colin Powell controlled Iraqi policy and was pushing a revised approach called "smart sanctions."
In any case, O'Neill, as Treasury secretary, was not privy to high-level security discussions. That's the purview of other officials and agencies.
About the book itself. The author, Ron Suskind, is a fine writer and good reporter. The book moves along quite easily. Yet Suskind himself is liberal and has written a series of articles critical of the Bush administration. Don't think for a moment he is objective.
And O'Neill's comments? Well, there has to be some truth to them. Yet it's his own version of the truth, one contradicted by many other people who have worked with Bush. What he says shouldn't be taken as gospel truth. It's merely one of many competing versions.
O'Neill himself keeps changing his tune and can't always be taken at his word. Last January, he told the Pittsburgh Gazette: "I'm a supporter of the institution of the presidency, and I'm determined not to say any negative things about the president and the Bush administration. They have enough to do without having me as a sharpshooter."
Then, of course, he put out his book.
And lately, he has backtracked from his more incendiary comments He regrets saying the president is "like a blind man in a room full of deaf people." On the Today show, he said: "If I could take it back, I would take it back."
He also noted the Clinton administration had plans to overthrow Saddam.
Perhaps even more cutting to Bush critics, O'Neill said he will still probably vote to reelect the president in 2004. "I don't see anyone who is better prepared or more capable," he told Today.
No matter. Some will view O'Neill as a heroic whistleblower, revealing the awful truth about the Bush presidency. Yet others will view O'Neill as a bitter ex-CEO trying to salvage his once-exalted reputation after being unceremoniously fired.
Personally, I lean toward the latter. No where in his book does O'Neill admit to any mistakes, a sure sign he lacks honesty in the most important area - critical self-examination. He portrays himself as the straightshooter who tells uncomfortable truths. He is a combination of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and Gary Cooper in High Noon.
Here's my question. O'Neill disagreed with much of the president's agenda. He could have refused the job or resigned on principle, but instead took the assignment and had to be was forced out. Why? My guess: a very big ego.
Even at the end, O'Neill was still blind to the ways of Washington. He ended his tenure as he began it: clueless.
Rating:
Summary: The Tip of the Iceberg
Review: This book reveals many (not all) the secrets of the current administration.
After all, there was no need to have our boys slaughtered in Iraq. What did we gain? Are the gas prices even low?
Just don't forget to thank GW Bush when you go visit your heroes' graves. Share your opinions at: http://kite.proboards16.com/index.cgi
Rating:
Summary: Better Late Than Never!
Review: The Bush Facade is finally cracking ... let's hope that the "mainstream" media wakes up and digs even further for the truth of this "Administration Gone Wild".
| 
