Rating: 
Summary: A rant not to be taken seriously.
Review: I have been recently reading several books about President Bush's administration, including this one. Unfortunately, there is not much here for those interested in objective views and factual information on the topic. This book is merely a venue for Paul O'Neill to rant about how he was pushed out of the administration because his policy initiatives were rejected. He didn't want to work as a team with other members of the administration, thinking he was better than everyone else, and got cut out for it. Now, he is looking for payback.O'Neill's portrayal of Bush as a passive participant in policy meetings and lacking thoughtful input does not correlate with more objective sources. If one wants to examine such an objective source, one should look at Bob Woodward's Bush at War. For anyone who knows Woodward's work, they know that he is certainly not a patsy for anyone. This is the man who exposed conflicts in George Bush, Sr.'s administration over the Persian Gulf War of 1991 in his book The Commanders, and also produced his classic work on Watergate, All the President's Men. Woodward presents a picture of Bush as being a quite proactive participant in policy meetings, guiding the direction of the policy with input from his advisors. CIA officials interviewed by Woodward commented on how impressed they were with Bush's informed questions when they first briefed him after winning the Presidential election in 2000. In the face of such contrary reports from a respected author like Woodward, O'Neill's comments look like pure fiction from a bitter ex-employee. This book should not be given much weight in the search for factual information on Bush's conduct as Commander in Chief.
Rating: 
Summary: Sometimes Candor Doesn't Win
Review: Note: My wife and I knew Paul and Nancy O'Neill very well when they lived in Washington during the period from 1965-1977, and we've seen them a number of times since; we also received a copy of the "Price of Loyalty" from them on the day of publication. The "Price of Loyalty" is pure Paul O'Neill, a man who is problem-oriented, wants all of the facts and where analysis of them leads. The answers are sometimes "liberal," sometimes "conservative." In other words he is results oriented, regardless of the political slant or consequences. When he returned to Washington in 2001, he apparently expected the collegial days of the past when he, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Greenspan were working in the Nixon-Ford Administrations during which time policy issues were hammered out. Both Nixon and Ford were well informed of the policies that were being proposed; both entered in and led discussions as to how policies should shaped and implemented. Times did change. Cheney and Rumsfeld's views had solidified; new ideas were not welcomed, particularly by Cheney whose stint as head of Halliburton seems to have caused him to believe that only the Rich and Powerful should inhabit the earth. And as the O'Neill memoranda made availalbe to Suskind show, plus interviews with others in the Administration, George W. Bush is not one to engage in details-oriented discussion nor does he do "nuance" or, apparently, much heavy thinking at all. The book reads as someone wrote like a mystery where the naive protagonist is telling his problems to a presumed confidant, Dick Cheney, who turns out to be the mole, thus putting the protagonist in great danger. In short this is a revealing book about Paul O'Neill, particularly to those who didn't know him, of this Administration's mindsets and philosophy, and of the chilling way that policy decisions have been sacrified on the alter of political ideaology--and damn the consequences. Perhaps the most important part of the book is the account of the frequent meetings between O'Neill and Greenspan, their common views as to the wisdom of the taxcuts without some assurance that the surplusses would in fact materialize, and their agreement about the need for real corporate reform at the top--and of the wish-washy product that came out instead. Not all things are mentioned in the book. The O'Neill relunctance to close down the off-shore banking loopholes enjoyed by corporations is one. And although mentioned, it is strange that O'Neill with his previous Washington experience and presumed knowledge of the sensitivity of financial markets and the weight of statements by US Treasury Secretaries would blurt out often "truths" that would cause adverse reactions--and clarifications the next day--at home and abroad. But congratulations to Paul O'Neill for allowing someone like Suskind to take his record as Treasury Secretary and to produce a book that gives ordinary citizens a close-up view of how this Administration works. It's good for American democracy, even if the current inhabitants of the White House and Executive Office buildings adjacent are undoubtedly unhappy.
Rating:
Summary: Suskind builds his case
Review: The media has confused the issue on this book, I think. This book is not written by Paul O'Neil. It is Ron Suskind telling the tale of Paul O'Niel's two years as Secretary of the Treasury. In this, granted, Suskind had what appears to be unlimited access to the Secretary and his notes. Yet, it is also important to remember that Suskind is an experienced journalist whose job it is to filter through whatever bitterness O'Neil may have (which is very little in my opinion) and tell the tale of how an analysis driven Secretary clashed with the policy development methods of his boss. This is not new territory for Suskind and he clearly has a point to make. For several years Suskind has been writing about how policy is made in the Bush Whitehouse (most of these articles can be found on the Suskind's web site). His argument is that Bush's policy decisions are more a result of the wishes of his political wing of the Whitehouse (Rove, Card, Cheney, etc) than of thoughtful discussion and situation analysis with his Secretaries. Many others have written about this issue and I think there is now little doubt that this is how Bush has chosen to lead the country. Of course, O'Neil, being one of the Secretaries in question, doesn't take well to this style of policy formation. The reader needs to decide his or her own feelings about this sytle of policy making. As this book is meant as a critique of the Whitehouse itself, rather than a analysis of O'Neil, Suskind opts not to deeply analyze the Secretary or the job he did at the Treasury. Why, for example, does it take starry eyed worship of Bono to get the Secretary to Africa? There is a lot of "I told you so" from O'Neil in the book without much (any, really) analysis of what he really did or did not contribute during his two years in Washington. It could be argued that this type of analysis is beyond the scope of this book. Suskind does open the door, though, so a little more thoughtful critique would have been appreciated.
Rating: 
Summary: It had to happen sooner or later
Review: Often, when I was an Air Force officer a decade ago, I would look around at all the butt kissing and think 'we're in trouble'. For too many, loyalty was telling superiors what they wanted to hear. It was bound to end up in the White House and it is a disaster for America. Bush grew up in the butt kissing culture and now is running a White House in that framework. Time and time again the folks who are truly loyal, who stand up and mention the facts when they are counter to what the administration is saying- which is more often than not- those folks get denounced and humiliated whether it is Joe Wilson, Generals warning about the time and manpower needed to occupy Iraq, Whitman, Powell, or O'Neill. This book offers clarification and answers to the bewilderment I've had as I wondered what is going on in thw White House the last couple of years.
And the things that make the book so compelling still go on daily. Since I put the book down 2 days ago, I read a NY times editorial go over point-by-point about how Bush ignored official warnings and facts from the US government in his run up to the war. I heard a small business woman in a staged publicity stunt attribute all of her companies success to the President's tax cut- while declaring him her hero (can't they at least fiddle with the script a little) and today Treasury Secretary Snow is distancing himself from White House job creation projections.
As I read the book it was hard to believe that so many seemingly qualified people would willingly play the patsy or a prop in scripted cabinet meetings etc. but then I remembered my Air Force experience and I guess it was bound to happen.
Rating:
Summary: Decision Making
Review: Truly a signifigant work coupled with frightening insight. Because no one person can know all of the intricacies of
a family, a company, an industry or any size of governmant organization, wise leaders rely on collecting the views,
costs, risks and payoffs attached to their open options
before making executive decisions. On page 167, you can read how Presidents Nixon and Ford used Brandeis Briefs to summarize and analyze the pros and cons of options. But then read on to see how President Bush handles such complex matters and you'll understand how we got to where we are now thanks to "the base."
Rating:
Summary: Scathing Criticism of Bush and Buddies
Review: Suskind has written a page-turner about the current president's administration based primarily on interviews with and documents given by former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill. The book is a welcome analysis of the inner workings of the present administration and is almost a condemnation of the way Bush and his inner circle, primarily Cheney and Rove, operate. O'Neill was the head of the treasury for two years under Bush until he was fired in 2002 mostly as a consequence of his straight talk which did not often jibe with the administration's agenda. As a former advisor to presidents Nixon and Ford, former CEO of Alcoa, and significantly, a longtime friend of Alan Greenspan, O'Neill has developed a keen economic sensibility and brought his talents to the Bush administration. Unfortunately, intellectual ability and straight talk does not necessarily translate into political success. From the first days of the administration to his resignation, O'Neill progressively ostracized himself from the president and his advisors by his often unrestrained and unwelcome straight talk. Thanks to his unwillingness to conform to the administration's agenda, he was forced out, and as a result, we now have this important book detailing the adminstration's inadequacies. This book confirms many of our perceptions of the current administration. Suskind portrays Bush as a man who appears to lack an understanding of complex economic and political issues relying instead on his closest advisors to provide analysis. Historically, the strength of a president often depends on his ability to comprehend many complex issues presented to him by his advisors and render his own analysis upon them. It appears that Bush often lets others do the analysis for him, and he even fails to peruse important memos and documents given to him. Rove and especially Cheney come off looking like the ultimate manipulators who have a profound influence on the president. Powell is portrayed as a very reasonable advisor who is obviously uncomfortable with the ideological wall surrounding the president. Greenspan, who O'Neill has known for decades, is depicted as pragmatic, cautious, and often indecipherable. This book obviously must lie in the realm between absolute falsehood and absolute truth. Of course, a book that relies primarily on one source who is certainly a bit disgruntled about his forced resignation will be biased. However, Suskind's book has several things in its favor that places it closer to truth than to fiction. Memos do not lie, and Suskind certainly had access to O'Neill's huge files of them. The author relied on O'Neill as his primary source, and the former Secratary of the Treasury has long been viewed as a man of unimpeachable character. And, of course, the administration's own actions and words speak for themselves. I highly recommend this book. It gives readers insight into an administration whose leader often appears overly ideological, uninformed, and more like head of a treehouse club packed with best buddies than president of the US.
Rating:
Summary: amazing insider's look
Review: What a treat to read about the inner workings of the White House and get to know people in the Bush administration. This is unlike any other book I have read before. Highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent read.
Review: This is a remarkable book, not only for the information it contains, but also because Suskind is a top notch author. Paul O'Neill is the second Whitehouse insider to come to Suskind to tell his story, the first having been John DiIulio, the former head of the "faith based" initiative. But O'Neill, as Secretary of Treasury, had a far more important job than DiIulio. And as a veteran of the Nixon and Ford administrations and a former CEO of Alcoa, he commands far more attention. O'Neill is a man who has no need for secrets, who believes that transparency is the best policy, and who is therefore willing to tell it like it is. As O'Neill puts it, he's old and rich, and unlike DiIulio, there's nothing they can do to harm him. What struck me most about this book is what a remarkable person Paul O'Neill is. Having come from humble roots, O'Neill has spent his professional life in dogged pursuit of facts and analysis. Lacking any ideological pretense, he is primarily interested in the solutions that the data can support, and believes that honest and open inquiry are the best methods for solving tough problems. A more striking contrast to Bush could hardly be found. O'Neill is the anti-Bush. Not surprisingly, things didn't work out so well. From the outset, Bush seemed to have little interest in communicating just what his economic policy actually was, and when O'Neill would put forth ideas in their one-on-one sessions, Bush would just sit there silently. It wasn't clear whether he didn't know or simply didn't care what O'Neill had to say. Meetings among top administration officials, in which important issues should have been candidly discussed, were instead carefully scripted to create an echo-chamber. O'Neill, who had been intimately familiar with several administrations, had never seen such a thing. He could hardly believe what he was witnessing. The lack of interest in the inner-workings of the government and apparent distain for any open inquiry have resulted in an administration run entirely by political operatives and ideologues. These are the people who persuaded Bush to pursue reckless tax cuts against the wishes of the experienced and pragmatic O'Neill. Bush's rationale? It played well with "The Base", by which he means the far Right-wing. There didn't seem to be any particular concern about what the practical outcome would be. As we now know, that outcome has been massive budget deficits, something that O'Neill and his friend Alan Greenspan have long fought against. And so it goes with every issue -- global warming, digging wells in Africa, corporate scandals -- the best policy is consistently trumped by politics, by allowing special interests or far-right ideologues to steamroll over in-depth analysis. It was almost enough to drive a pragmatist like O'Neill crazy. But he stuck with the job, vowing that he would continue to speak his mind and speak the truth, whatever the consequences may be. Eventually, the consequences came due: He was fired. I strongly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in contemporary politics and the Bush Whitehouse, whether liberal or conservative. There is no sense in dismissing the book as biased -- everything in it comes straight from O'Neill, who is a Republican. Suskind merely serves as the skillful storyteller. It's high time that the public did some pragmatic analysis of its own.
Rating:
Summary: Don't trust anyone under "43"
Review: Paul O'Neill is a millionaire and a big-time corporate CEO. He's a fiscally conservative Republican whose counsel was sought by every U.S. President from Nixon to Clinton. He came to Washington at the invitation of his old friend Dick Cheney to be Secretary of the Treasury -- the man trusted to sign the dollar bill. That was his first mistake. "The Price of Loyalty" is a meticulously detailed work. Not O'Neill's autobiography per se, it's a work of investigatory journalism by the Wall Street Journal's Ron Suskind, given full access not only to O'Neill, but to all of his work-product (schedules, memos, personal notes) from two years in the Bush White House. Because the Bush presidency is best known for its obsessive secrecy, it's former CEO O'Neill's devotion to transparency that caused his ouster from Washington. To read this account of his too-short Cabinet tenure is to understand how one of America's most influential (albeit behind-the-scenes) Republicans become heartbroken at the direction the country took under George W. Bush. This is "Bush 43" as painted by his top fiscal advisor -- a man who preached budgetary responsibility, and who therefore first drew reproving stares from the political right for praising Bill Clinton's monetary policies. O'Neill reveals everything: from Bush's inability to ask questions in one-on-one meetings, to the primacy of his political advisors (Karl Rove, Larry Lindsey) over policy men (O'Neill, Christy Todd Whitman, Colin Powell, Alan Greenspan), to his comical yet life-changing visit to Africa with Bono. The book's major revelation is not that Bush's team planned to invade Iraq even before September 2001 -- that was basically an open secret, even though Bob Woodward did not report it that way in "Bush At War". Rather, the most revealing tidbit in "The Price of Loyalty" is the composition of Cheney's secret energy policy task force, the identity of whose members had to be litigated in federal court. O'Neill names names, and shows how that policy group was influenced solely by energy executives, without any input from environmental voices. This book celebrates thought process and pragmatism. O'Neill's thoughts and ideas are dense, his economics hard to interpret for the layman, but his dedication to hearing both sides is admirable. His (increasingly shorter) briefs for the President argued both sides of a position, while still laying out a clear road map of where he wanted the President to go. However, his ideas were abandoned by Bush's political men -- the ideologues, not the planners or thinkers. But O'Neill was no mere policy wonk -- he was a radical executive who enjoyed making waves -- and the fact that he was chased from the Administration, does not speak well of the man who was elected to run it. The final insult comes when Cheney -- not the President -- called to tell O'Neill he was out. When O'Neill was offered the "amicable and gracious" chance to resign, he refused to offer the excuse that he was "returning to private life". The next day, after submitting his resignation, O'Neill turned on CNBC and heard he'd been fired. Not amicable. Not gracious.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting insights on the Bush administration
Review: This book shows us Paul O'Neill as "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." He wants only what's good for all, and is gradually disillusioned by the ideology of the Bush administration. O'Neill's journey as he comes to Washington and eventually leaves a sadder but a wiser man is interesting, and some of the highlights have already been reported on the evening news. The portrayal of the second President Bush as a man who wants proposals broken down to simplest terms, and seems to blow whichever way the last person to speak is blowing, is compelling. Also interesting are the portraits of such enigmas (to us) as Greenspan, Rowe, and Cheney. The material gives much aid and comfort to the administration's opponents. The problem is, though, that some of the value of the points that are made is destroyed by the clear bias Suskind brings to the writing. Suskind asserts as a fact (page 299) that the initial Bush tax cut gave a "disproportionate boost" to the wealthy. Disproportionate? Who decided that one? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but Suskind, as a presumably neutral narrator, shouldn't be making that kind of statement. It's good, and interesting, and valuable, but its bias destroys some of its value. It could have been done better.
| 
