A balanced account of the W and Cheney White House

Any additional comments?

First off, I'll admit I was no fan of George W Bush yet still the man intrigued me. Could he really be as dumb, arrogant, and stubborn as his persona suggests? Well, according to this well written account of his White House years, the answer is yes and no. This is a nicely nuanced portrait of the Bush and Cheney partnership that really only lasted he first term of the presidency. All of Bush's failings are in display here and the author links these in subtle ways with W's character flaws. At the same time, this is hardly a hatchet job. Undeniably the Bush presidency was a time of monumental challenges, some of Bush and Cheney's own making, some not. The influence of each man on the other is depicted in an almost Shakespearian tragic way as initial successes lead to epic failures and estrangement. A compelling read that will likely not satisfy hard core Bush apologists or detractors, this is well worth the read for anyone seeking a better understanding of he partner ship that made he White House tick.

16 people found this helpful

Very balanced

Any additional comments?

Very balanced report of the Bush/Cheney years. Previously I was a Bush-basher but by the time the audio book ended, I felt some compassion for him. This is not to say that the book is pro-Bush; indeed, the author was careful to point out his mistakes and shortcomings. The portrait of Cheney was excellent. Even if you don't agree with the man, you can't help but respect him for his deference to the president in spite of his oft-held disagreements. Highly recommend this audio book.

6 people found this helpful

Liberal media more than fair to Bush and Cheney.

What would have made Days of Fire better?

While the facts seem pretty damning, the administration of George W. Bush receives an almost fawning treatment as a history. NY Times White House correspondent Peter Baker relies too heavily on inside accounts of what happened during America's lost decade. Presidential official insiders give their slanted view and spin on the disaster caused by all the wrong decisions. History would be better served by a more critical voices and more insightful analysis.

What other book might you compare Days of Fire to and why?

Washington Post reporter Barton Gellman's "Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency" provides keener analysis and far more revealing reporting on how Cheney became the power behind the throne. The book provides many revelations and behind the scenes details than Baker's book.

What about Mark Deakins’s performance did you like?

The narrator does a fantastic job to keep the listener involved.

You didn’t love this book... but did it have any redeeming qualities?

The book writes a sympathetic history of the George W. Bush. Republicans will love this book as it seems to vindicate all the bad decisions made. As a student of history or as a Democrat, most readers will find this book lacks balance.

Any additional comments?

If you think Bush was a great President, buy this audiobook. If you are a Democrat, the memories of this worst President of modern times will be painful. So much for the liberal media, the New York Times gives him a passing grade.

6 people found this helpful

An objective viewpoint

I hesitated in getting this book, I was not sure if the book was going to be a whitewash job or acrimonious, but instead I found it to be objective report. Peter Baker is a White House reporter for the New York Times. I find he has written a through, engaging and objective history of the Bush-Cheney years in the White House.

Baker states Vice President Cheney was the most powerful vice president in history. He did more than anyone to shape counter terrorism policy after the 9/11 attack and lead us into war in Iraq. In the second term Cheney looked and acted more like the traditional vice president. President Bush generally pursued a more centrist course on many or most of the issues-over Cheney’s objection. One of the questions in the book, was Cheney always an ultra conservative Republican or did the repeated heart problems cause him to change? Before Bush left office he set up the programs to bail out of the banks and the car companies in an attempt to slow down or stop the recession/depression. The historical judgments of the Bush administration are only beginning to take shape. It has taken several years for the key people to write their memoirs and for the presidents’ friend and subordinates to offer stories they wouldn’t volunteer at the time the Bush team was in the White House. Baker painstakingly worked through all the books published so far and interviewed over 200 people for this book.

I found the section of the book about selecting judges most interesting. I noticed that Bush selected the people whose job it was to find, obtain information on and interview attorneys for judgeship even before moving into the White House. He set about filling every vacancy on all Federal courts. He also had staff looking for a Supreme Court justice, at that time Chief Justice Rehnquist was ill and most likely would be resigning soon. Bush was surprised and pleased to be able to appoint two justices as that would change the balance of the Court. He was looking for someone who was conservative and would not change after being appointed as did Justice Souter. I noted Bush called and spoke to each person appointed to a judgeship, so they would know that he was involved in their appointment. Baker claimed no other president, had called to speak to appointees of the lower courts. Baker spent several chapters describing in detail the court selection process. As I have been reading about the Supreme Court and the legal system recently, I was excited to learn about the process from the viewpoint of the presiding President.

The book traces the upbringing and early careers of both Bush and Cheney and follows them to the end of their time in the White House. The author’s book is notable for its scope and ambition. I am sure it will become a reference source for historians in the future. The process of disillusionment which culminated in Bush’s refusal to pardon Cheney’s aid Scooter Libby forms the heart of the book. Mark Deakins did an excellent job narrating the book.

5 people found this helpful

DAYS OF FIRE

It is too soon to be writing about the Bush/Cheney administration. The pain of 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are too raw for most Americans. Peter Baker’s exploration of George Walker Bush’s administration offers interesting historical information. But perspective requires more time.

Baker’s book will not change minds about the success or failure of George W. Bush’s administration. It offers details to supporters and detractors of Bush’s tenure as President. Supporters will admire Bush’s tenacious spirit. Detractors will decry Bush’s obstinate belief in “experts”. Supporters will admire Cheney’s toughness in the face of unexpected consequences. Detractors will vilify Cheney for not foreseeing consequences.

Bush’s silver spooned life is contrasted with Cheney’s stainless steel life. Bush’s parental-rebellion is contrasted with Cheney’s "don't give a damn” wilding. Because Bush and Cheney both attended Yale, they had some common experience but Bush graduated; Cheney did not. This detail reinforces the argument that Bush may have respected Cheney but felt more qualified to be the decider; not only by virtue of position but by virtue of accomplishment. Baker identifies or infers Bush's independence of Cheney's influence; particularly in the second term.

Bush' decisions on war, foreign, and domestic policy will be second-guessed for generations. Though it is too soon to write an unbiased history of “W’s” time in office, Baker reports some interesting details about the George W. Bush’ years. Both Bush and Cheney survive the days of fire but Cheney appears more scorched than Bush at the end of Baker’s tale.

4 people found this helpful

They're human!

I agree with pretty much all the reviews I've seen on this book. It is a good read. It is impartial. Like others, I was hesitant to revisit recent history at length. But I'm glad I did. I was in college from 9/11 through the reelection. We didn't give Bush the benefit of the doubt on anything. In fact the consensus opinion was he was at a useful idiot for multi-national companies to do their bidding, helping his oil company buddies get rich, a holy roller who thought the end of the world was coming, anti-science, bigoted, using threat of terrorism as excuse for suspension of civil liberties and endless war for the military industrial complex. For some reason he was portrayed as Hitler on protest signs. (As we see with Obama, that seems to be the new standard for all presidents.)

I admit I haven't read any other books about Bush/Cheney. I'm sure there are other good ones. The main thing I want to say about reading Days of Fire, particularly to those who, like me, were prone to thinking the worst of these men during that time, is that it provides a credible narrative that corresponds with what they said they were doing. They really thought there would be another terrorist attack. They really thought Saddam Hussein's evasiveness meant he was hiding WMDs. Bush asked all members of the cabinet and all advisers if they had any objections to going into Iraq based on intelligence furnished by CIA. None did. He was really told by Louisiana governor that Katrina response was under control. And of course, the vindication of many policies being that Obama left them unchanged.

Bush comes off smarter than people gave him credit for. He's funny, even witty at times. He can run a meeting. He can inspire the support of academics and experienced public servants. He believes a good boss puts the best person he can find in important posts and delegates. The MBA approach. He stresses loyalty, maybe to a fault (an easy fault to forgive). But he ultimately failed because he put his faith in the wrong people. He was too quick to take verbal assurances that things were under control. His perceptions were not correct. He didn't see Putin's soul. His judgement was off. But he had good intentions, and he tried to do good things in the world. He was more idealistic than his successor. He really believed scenes like the Iraqis with ink on the thumbs presaged a new, Democratic Middle East. This is the portrait Baker lives you with.

3 people found this helpful

The 9/11 Parts Are Very Emotional

Overall - very good and well worth the listen.

The last portion of Part I and into Part II are very emotional as the author describes how Bush reacted to and handled 9/11 in real time. I was moved to tears also during certain parts of that portion of the recording. Dubya handled it the best anyone could do at the time, and although I have issues with the rest of his presidency...the description of that period and how he and Cheney handled it are worth the entire cost of the title.

3 people found this helpful

Informative!

This book took me over a month to complete and at times I struggled to stay with it but it was so worth it. This is a very comprehensive account of the 8 years Bush 43 held the office of the president. I read Decision Points before this one and this really helped fill in any blanks there may have been. I feel like I know all there is to know about George W. Bush and most of his administration. Great book and finishing it makes for a sad day. It's been a part of my morning commute for quite some time. Definitely recommend, and will recommend Decision Points as well.

1 person found this helpful

History without bias

What made the experience of listening to Days of Fire the most enjoyable?

The objectivity of the research, often giving multiple examples equally, was the most refreshing part.

What was the most compelling aspect of this narrative?

Logically ordered

Which character – as performed by Mark Deakins – was your favorite?

Not sure

Was this a book you wanted to listen to all in one sitting?

At 27 hours long, impossible. But I certainly didn't want to stop midway.

Any additional comments?

A well told true historical account without the trickle of revisionism that often pervades such recent polarizing figures.

1 person found this helpful

An Absolute Stunner

I grew up hating W. I was a fanatical viewer of Jon Stewart (at probably too young an age) and I soaked in every word my father said about switching to become a Republican in Ohio in 2000 just to vote against him in the Primary. He was stupid, boorish, ruined our alliances and every move he took was a mistake. It wasn’t Bush’s fault though anyway, he was an empty suit as Darth Cheney ran the Administration and destroyed America.

This endlessly fascinating, detailed and researched book is probably the most thorough confrontation of those beliefs I have ever had. In light of the last administration, I have been warming up as an adult to W. as a man, and this book was a game changer for me. On balance I still believe the Bush Presidency was a failed administration, but I walk away from this book believing it was not only nowhere near as bad as I had grown up believing but also largely a failure based on genuine positives of Bush himself as a politician and as a man.

The Bush revealed in this book may have been anti-intellectual, but not stupid. He was a deep thinker, well read, clever, but hated pretension and superiority complexes. He genuinely believed most of what he said, and when he attempted to play the cynical games of all American Politicians to win votes he would fail to find the passion or drive to push. In particular his pledge to ban same sex marriage as a second campaign promise, as he was personally opposed to federal involvement in such matters and loved many queer people in his life, but pushed the pledge nonetheless to win an Evangelical Base he only mildly related to. He genuinely cared for the education of all Americans despite race or language, and the failure of No Child Left Behind was born not of cynical politicking but of a genuine disconnect between the research of childcare and the policy makers. Big one: I get the build up to the war in Iraq, on Bush’s part. The war was a blunder that helped throw the entire region into turmoil, but for much of his second term especially the war seemed to be creating stability and ending in honor. Bush himself comes off as a real human being who fundamentally was not built for the role in history he was mantled with, and fundamentally he made mistakes born out of intentions I cannot argue against. He also admits that a lot throughout the book. He was self aware in ways many politicians fundamentally are not.

Cheney does not come off as well. The Machiavellian Darth Cheney of the Left’s (and my) imagination is far more of a dude’s dude, a quiet, brooding, old guard neocon paranoid who believed in the military as a fly swatter and in the divine right of the American Presidency. The Dick of Adam McKay’s Vice is also wrong: he’s not an evil genius. He’s a strongman and a bit of a jerk. The book’s main thrust largely becomes how the first term was born out of Cheney seeming like a level headed mentor for W., and the second term being George and Condaleeza Rice attempting to clean up the messes Dick left in his wake. Cheney would have, honestly, fit in very well in The Donald’s administration, and feels very much a last remnant of the Nixon Era (which is exactly what he was).

This book is also perhaps the most exhaustively researched Presidential Narrative I have ever read not written by either Caro or Chernow. Every detail is lifted from interviews, memos, legal documents or recordings. Occasionally a reference is made toward how much legal trouble it was to get some of the documents sourced.

This book is utterly brilliant, and to end I wish to have a damning revelation from this book, and an uplifting and enlightening one. Firstly, The Patriot Act, wherein the Government had been permitted to spy on its citizens without repercussions, was born out of an ill thought out and rushed proposal that was never fully thought through. Your basic civil rights to privacy and free speech are violated every day because the bill wasn’t properly vetted.
And an up: fundamentally I don’t think the world would be a better place without the Bush Administration’s efforts to fight AIDS and Malaria worldwide, especially in Africa. Going step by step through the work W. pushed in the region, it is actually shocking how much the man clearly cared and what a net positive his administration brought. We have one positive from those eight years that need not come with an asterisk.

Read this book. It’s incredible.