Days of Fire: Bush and Cheney in the White House

A detailed chronicle of an interesting time in our recent past. An worthy collection to understand nuances of history. The style and the details are facinating

My goal for this review is to make it non-partisan. I am a political blogger and most people I blog with are labeled conservative or liberal. I am one of the few handful of bloggers that has voted both Democrat and Republican, and tend to look at the issues and candidates carefully before I vote. On the political blogging sites, I know whom is liberal and whom is conservative, and I have to take their comments and opinions with that in mind. With that said, I voted for George W. Bush. Twice. In the end I just felt safer under Bush. Although he was aggressive with foreign policy, I re-played 9/11 over in my mind and didn't want to go through another terrorist attack. I also voted for Obama. Twice.Prologue: Days of Fire is a chronological account of the Bush and Cheney days in the White House. In the prologue, Peter Baker addresses the elephant in the room, which is the rumor and speculation that Dick Cheney heavily influenced Bush's decisions and policies. I always see "President Cheney" on blogs, and I was curious as to whether that was true, or just media-spinned rumor. After the prologue, you are then free to make that determination for yourself, which is the main reason I awarded 5 stars. I didn't feel influenced or persuaded, just informed.Media Falsehoods: I am guilty at times of reading media accounts and taking them at face value. Almost daily on blogging sites do you see the claim that WMD were actually found in Iraq. Days of Fire gives a credible version of events leading up to the false intelligence that claimed WMD existed in Iraq, and the reports that followed the War that Iraq's weapons facilities were destroyed and never rebuilt after the first Iraq war in 1991. The media also fueled speculations that Dick Cheney was the one calling all of the shots. It also fueled the negativity of certain troops actions in Iraq (Abu Ghraib) and the handling of prisoners after 9/11. Although those are a stain on the military and government, Days of Fire addresses what actually happened and why, along with how many people were actually affected.Personal Impact in Politics: (This section may be classified as a spoiler... I don't really think so, as what I discuss is a part of history and my own opinions. But I wanted to point out that I mention some events that were covered in this book.) I've had this idea/revelation floating around in my head for a few weeks now. It started with a post from a blogger that is extremely liberal on 99% of topics. The 1% was a surprise to me when a post of his illustrated his anger towards women who demand equal rights. He stated he thought the "war on women" was a joke and women were controlling and manipulative in order to achieve their goals. Wow! Where did that come from Mr. "Fair" Liberal? It turns out he is recently divorced. How is this related? Days of Fire addresses Dick Cheney's opinions and responses to his daughter's sexuality. Early in the book there is a paragraph that discusses everything Dick Cheney has voted for/against in his career. (I shook my head in disbelief that somebody could be so rigid!) It is apparent that his politics are on the far right of the political spectrum. However, when it comes to gay rights, he is liberal. That tells me many politicians make decisions and policies on things that do not directly impact them. Once something impacts them directly and they have to walk a mile, they often have a change in heart. This concept also shows when George Bush pledged billions of dollars to the fight against AIDS and other diseases in Africa. His sister died of leukemia and he was forever sensitive towards disease and disease research. I think it would be fantastic to have politicians that have walked a mile in others shoes, and never vote on something that they have no identity with. I realize this is improbable, but Days of Fire illustrated the complexities of government, and put out some fires that were fueled by the media and misunderstanding of the hard choices that had to be made. I sympathize a bit more with George Bush and saw a much more complex figure than I initially thought. I also shook my head numerous times during the book, as I couldn't believe how many avoidable mistakes were made.Conclusion: I think it's important to read books like Days of Fire. I have this feeling that with the rise of ISIS and the emergence of more world powers, that our days of war are far from over. If anything, Days of Fire will help you see that its not just the push of a button, and decisions are not always black and white. Today it was announced that Chuck Hagel (Obama's Defense Secretary) is resigning. Its good to ignore the rumors and Op-ed's, and wait for the full story. I have also learned that each administration is filled with tough choices and difficult times, regardless if liberal or conservative. We should always remember GW made his decisions and policies in response to 9/11. We shouldn't forget how scary and awful that was.

Books about the Presidency of George W. Bush generally tend to go in two directions: the more common Bush bashfests, or the less common "Bush was right" tomes. New York Times Chief White House correspondent Peter Baker opts for a more objective analysis of both the Bush Presidency and of Bush the President, and in doing so writes a most interesting accounting of both. Baker's retelling has an added dimension that has never been as carefully considered: the complicated relationship between George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. In doing all of this, Baker dispels several myths and misconceptions and gives the reader a fresh perspective that differs from the George W. Bush seen in the 24 hour news cycles of the last decade.The first part of the book seems repetitive of stories that have been told before: the controversial 2001 election, the September 11th attacks and the build-up to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some readers may think, "Bob Woodward has already written about all of this." But much of Baker's focus is on the relationship between Bush and Cheney, and to a lesser extent, Bush and Karl Rove. Baker demonstrates how, in the early stages of his presidency, Bush relied on Cheney (and to a lesser extent on Rove) for guidance, and how Bush grew in the job to the point where Cheney was relegated almost to the point of irrelevance. According to Baker, stories about Cheney being the puppet-master have no validity.The book traces the relationship between president and vice-president and analyses how Cheney went from being the central figure in the Bush administration at the beginning to being pushed in the background in the second term, generally in the minority on many issues, and even at odds with his president on a number of issues, including the pardoning of Cheney's Chief of Staff "Scooter" Libby. Throughout, Cheney remains loyal and is never vocal in his criticism of his president.Baker demonstrates how Bush's presidency was a collection of the most daunting challenges ever faced by an American President: a terrorist attack on American soil, two wars in response (one enjoying popular support at first, the other founded on a much questioned premise), the threat of ongoing attack, natural disasters at home, and the worst financial crisis since the great depression. In examining each of these challenges, a central theme emerges regarding Bush's leadership. In the words of former Bush speechwriter David Frum, "Bush made crises through neglect, and then resolved crises through courage." Baker makes the case that this is essentially correct.The war on Iraq is the most prominent issue throughout Bush's presidency and it is ably and thoroughly covered by Baker. The dynamic between Bush and his generals is especially interesting. Bush is fearful of becoming another Lyndon Johnson (and of Iraq becoming Vietnam) and in doing so delays in bringing about the surge which ultimately ends much of the fighting. Bush is focused and driven while his support and public approval is hemorrhaging.Baker notes how Bush was, at times during his presidency, both the most popular and the least popular president in history. He rejects the notion that Bush is a stupid person, or is someone bound by ideology. He points out how well-read Bush is, and how many times he broke with conservative ideology when the circumstances called for it. Many of Bush's harshest critics were on the right as well as on the left. Baker concludes that Bush was his own man, that he was indeed "the decider."This is an excellent book, one which details the stresses and strains on a president during difficult and challenging times. It is a fair accounting of George Bush's responses to those challenges, both good and bad, and of his personal strengths and weaknesses. It is neither hero worship nor Bush bashing, and Baker's lack of any agenda, pro or con, makes it so enjoyable. Readers who finish this book will leave with a different understanding and impression of the 43rd President, of how much he was influenced by others and of how much he was guided by his own core principles. It has the added dimensions of an assessment of the role that Dick Cheney played in the Bush administration and of Cheney's complex personality. This book is a worthwhile read for anyone wishing for an objective retrospective and analysis of the Bush Presidency, and is one of the best works of history to be published in 2013.

For those of us on this side of the Atlantic, US politics has only a marginal relevance in normal times, especially since the end of the Cold War. But following the atrocity of 9/11, Bush was suddenly thrust on to the world stage in a way he had not anticipated and overnight his pronouncements and actions became as important over here as those of our own leaders - especially since Blair instantly committed the UK to go along with the US wherever Bush might lead them. As a result, the Bush presidency is to me the most interesting of modern times.In this book, Peter Baker, the Chief White House Correspondent of the New York Times, sets out to examine the relationship between Bush and Vice-President Cheney - an unusual relationship from the start since Cheney made it clear that he had no intention to run for the presidency at any point in the future. The received wisdom back in the early years was that Bush was a bumbling buffoon riding on his father's achievements; and that Cheney, one of his father's henchmen, was the power behind the throne - a shadowy and rather machiavellian figure - the puppet-master. Baker's position is that Cheney's influence was strong in the early years and that his support after 9/11 was crucial, but that ultimately Bush was his own man even then, and that Cheney's influence gradually waned as time passed.Baker's account is very heavily weighted towards foreign affairs and the 'war on terror', particularly Iraq, presumably because this is the area in which Cheney was most involved. Although domestic policies are discussed from time to time, the coverage of them is nothing like as detailed or insightful. Again that works well for me, as a Brit, since it is the foreign policy that most interests me - however I felt it was a bit of a lack in the scope of the book. The other major weakness of the book, I felt, was a disregard of the influence of other world leaders on Bush's position (and vice-versa) - we remember him trying to accommodate Blair's domestic troubles over Iraq and we vividly remember the infamous 'cheese-eating surrender monkeys' phrase hurled (though not directly by Bush) at a disobedient France (now apparently 'America's oldest ally', since Syria). The attempt to gain the support of allies is discussed, particularly the whole UN resolution saga, but not with the depth that might have been expected, considering how much it damaged the position of the US in the eyes of much of the rest of the world. Interestingly Hans Blix doesn't get a single mention in the whole book, while Jacques Chirac rates only two.However, other than these omissions or weaknesses, the book is an extremely thorough and detailed account of the workings of the White House during a presidency hit by catastrophe and disaster - from 9/11 to Katrina to the economic meltdown. Overall Baker takes a sympathetic view of both men, though he doesn't shy away from discussing the more unforgivable aspects of the period either - torture, water-boarding, Guantanamo et al. He does make the point, and makes it well, that such unconstitutional actions had precedents in previous presidencies at times of crisis, and shows how Bush pulled back from the worst excesses as the threat level decreased. Cheney however is shown as having developed an almost paranoid fear of another terrorist assault that led him to want to extend the power of the executive to extraordinary levels, and to justify almost any form of behaviour, no matter how morally repugnant, as necessary in the cause of security.In the first half, the first four years, the book is very much about both men. However, in the second term, Cheney begins to fade away as Rice becomes the most prominent of the President's advisers, and the book becomes much more of a biography of Bush alone. This tallies with Baker's depiction of Cheney's gradual loss of importance to Bush, but does mean that the focus on the relationship gets a bit lost somewhere along the way. But that doesn't stop it being a fascinating record of a turbulent time in US history. I came out of it feeling that I understood Bush much better, but that somehow Cheney remained a bit of a shadowy figure.In conclusion, this is a well written, detailed and interesting account, but not the complete picture of the period and I'm sure not the last word either on the Bush presidency or on his relationship with Cheney. The author's sympathy is more for the men than for their policies, necessarily; and as such it is a good reminder of how we ask people to perform impossible jobs and then criticise them for mistakes or failures. Bush and Cheney made some serious mistakes, not lightly forgotten or forgiven, but this book gives a revealing picture of the almost intolerable pressures they had to deal with, and of the toll it took of them. Despite some weaknesses, the book is a major work that sheds a good deal of light on the time, and it therefore gets a 'highly recommended' from me.

Provides a more or less inside view of personalities and utterances of both subjects of the book

Much about Dick Cheney seems enigmatic and this is the first book I have found that brings real focus on his policy influence during the Bush II reign. It is most informative on the invasion of Iraq, and is neither a revisionist memoir nor a tome from one of Cheney's White House colleagues. Perhaps surprisingly Bush comes out of it quite well, considering what he was having to content with, including regular stand-offs between senior staffers (Cheney vs Powell, Rumsfeld vs Rice).It chronicles in detail many of the decision processes and gives the lie to the idea that Bush was not his own man, especially during his second term. He seems to have made fewer misjudgements rather was often misled by his executive promoting narrow agendas, such as on the matter of Saddam's WMD. There seems to have been a tendency to paranoia among neocon war-mongers such as Cheney's coterie (eg Abrams, Bolton, Edelman, Wolfowitz - were they in support of the US weapons industry, or simply trying to undermine a perceived serious military threat to Israel?), who applied regular pressure on Bush to take 'action'. Wolfowitz was regularly 'making the case for going after Saddam...although he presented no evidence', which made Bush incensed, saying 'How many times do I have to tell you we are not...?''Cheney rather selected himself for the position of vice-President, and seems to have envisaged it as a way to shape policy, working for a relatively inexperienced C in C through his established network of loyal staffers, without having to waste time raising funds and campaigning to stay elected.At critical times during the invasion of Iraq Bush would be diverted to urgent domestic policies, especially tax cuts, and so Cheney could take the lead on important policies such as stalling (as a former CEO in the Oil Sector), US participation on Kyoto, or trying to rescue his CoS Libby being imprisoned for revealing the name of a CIA operative (one of many deliberate 'leaks'). This book written by a leading journalist is an excellent read.