Customer Reviews

A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency

5 star:		(47)
4 star:		(14)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

As a diehard Republican, I read this book very skeptically. The only reason Greenwald was able to convince me was because of the exhaustive research and sourcing he did. The book drew me in immediately and I couldn't put it down for the whole day. I highly recommend it for anyone who has slight doubts about Bush but is afraid like I was to challenge our GOP leadership. Greenwald has real guts to come out with a politically incorrect reality that we all must deal with.

President Bush has been the recipient of innate American loyalty to the office he holds, for far too long. Many of us who saw the handwriting on the wall years ago, still found it hard to admit how badly our country was being served by this President. Now the blinders are off and thanks in part to Glenn Greenwald, we can see much more clearly now.

In an insightful and dispassionate portrayal of the Bush administration, Greenwald has identified what he sees as one of the core flaws of President Bush's approach to world diplomacy and the governing of our country- good vs. evil and an overly simplistic view of the world.

The author describes Mr. Bush's approach to the Presidency, as antiquated and out of touch with the world today. Mr. Bush has fallen back on fundamentalist thinking, and by that I mean, a bleary-eyed black and white view of things. The world isn't that simple, and simple approaches don't work on complex issues. Greenwald outlines some of the ways in which Mr. Bush with his limited thinking and "Quickdraw McGraw" tactics, has irrefutably damaged our country and the world's perception of the US.

This author has very fairly critiqued the President's performance, and shares the whys and wherefores that formed his view of "Bushworld" and some suggestions on how the US can regain world respect.

This is a must-read book, for those who want to make sure that the next President we elect, represents the US, its policies and its citizens fairly and intelligently. We need an effective intelligent President, to help us to dig out of the hole in which we now find ourselves. This is a great book, and written in such an unbiased way, than even Bush fans will have to acknowledge the truth revealed here.

I've been blogging for five years or so, working in political organizing to bring change to the country. At a certain point in such a career, you kind of feel like your political framework is basically set, that though there is a lot of new information to learn the basic contours of how to understand our political system are in place. Not so. I read this book, and it helped me understand the danger of dogmatic thinking, the danger of writing off debate, and the importance of humility. It's not that, morally speaking, humility is a nice trait. What Greenwald shows is that the lack of said trait, and the absolute certitude of mind is at the core of how Bush has operated and how this man has destroyed himself, his Presidency, and how we as a country have ruined a great deal of our national fiber. It's an important idea that deserves wide discussion.

I had about two hours with an advance copy of this a few days ago and it seems every bit as good as I'd expect.

Glenn Greenwald is unique among political observers in terms of his ability to archive information and mold that information into arguments that are very difficult to refute. This may have to do with his past as a constitutional lawyer. Certainly, his arguments are made with a lawyerly meticulousness.

I tend to think the premise is right on: while it's easy to see Bush primarily as incompetent or even evil, this book makes the case -- convincingly -- that Bush's greatest weakness is a tendency to view the world in black and white. That is probably most clear with his middle eastern policy but it informs many domestic decisions as well, as Greenwald makes clear. When assessing a presidency -- both its motives and its aims -- it's important to look at the body of evidence and not engage in arm chair psychology. That is where this book's strength lies: the evidence it assembles is overwhelming.

This book is in some ways a tough read. It's not jokey or catty the way much political writing is these days. It demands a lot of concentration. But if you want to understand where the Bush presidency went wrong, you need to take a look at this.

George W. Bush has a different way of viewing the world. His motives for official political policy are encouraged not by reason, open debate, or any type of sensible discussion. No, Bush issues his marching orders and conducts the running of the country by relying on something completely different: The idea of absolute moral righteousness and its correct place over the reality of evil. Bush doesn't see any gray area; doesn't consider that he might be wrong; and doesn't revamp his strategies- either foreign or domestic- when they have been shown not to work. He stubbornly moves forward, even when every indicator shows that his policies are a total and complete failure.

Many books have been written about the endless failures of the Bush presidency with each book's author offering his/her own perspective on George W. Bush, his life, his many mistakes, and the motives that make him act the way he does. I have read many of these books, and I have come away with mixed feelings on what it is that truly motivates or guides our forty- third president. Some authors make Bush sound like an out- of- control maniac. Others make him out to be just another spoiled son of a wealthy father who is enjoying his reign of power and sharing the benefits with those he calls his friends.

But among all the books I have read about George W. Bush, "A Tragic Legacy" ranks as the best of all. It marks the first time I have read a book that critiques the Bush mindset in this absolutist "good vs. bad" manner, and it really nails squarely the way that Bush views the world and how this forms the basis of his government policy decisions. It is this "good vs. evil" mentality that has led Bush in his quest to conquer "evil" nations like Iraq and to declare nations like North Korea, Iran, and others as an "Axis of Evil". Bush simplifies the world in this manner; attempting to place the different nations around the globe and the different events that take place in the world in these nice, neat, this-way-or-that-way packages.

Most people know about Bush's supposed ties to his religious faith and the president openly talks about them every now and then; sometimes sprinkling his speeches with religious language. I have always felt that Bush's religious persona was a political maneuver to win votes. But this book takes a different stand and offers convincing evidence for his theory on the Bush mind. The author believes that Bush is completely sincere when it comes to religion and that the only reason he doesn't talk even more openly about it is because he knows it doesn't make good politics. He also believes that the Manichean worldview that Bush has adopted is completely the result of his religious beliefs. And like other evangelical types, Bush is completely, 100 percent convinced he is on the side of good; making him incapable of making a bad decision and making it a requirement that he continue to fight the good fight every day, lest he be condemned in the afterlife for caving in to the forces of evil.

If you examine the president's actions, what this book says makes perfect sense. There is, without question, a tendency on the part of Bush to divide people and world events into two categories. And, invariably, it is always his side that is fighting for good. It matters not that his policies have been failures. It doesn't even matter if he lies. As the book accurately states, the Manichean thinker is so convinced of his/her own "rightness" that it pervades everything he/she does, up to and beyond the point of ever admitting a mistake. In fact, if things are going poorly, the Manichean proponent is likely to try even harder rather than admit wrongdoing.

I very much like the fact that the author wrote this book in such a calm, yet confident and respectful way. He doesn't degrade the president for thinking the way he does. He doesn't make fun or resort to name calling. Instead, he just explains the observations that he and the rest of the world has seen with Bush, adds a few good quotations, and proceeds to describe his theory about Bush's mode of thinking. He expresses himself very well, showing how Bush's thinking is so different from other presidents and explaining why it is so damaging when used to make official government decisions.

George W. Bush, the forty- third president of the United States, is going to leave a long legacy behind him. Unless something miraculous takes place in the next fifteen months, Bush will likely go down in history as one of America's worst chief executives. This tragic legacy was crafted by Bush himself and there is no one else he can blame. A good vs. evil mindset is perfectly fine for individual decision making but it has been shown over and over again to have devastating effects when used to guide government actions. This, my friends, is the legacy of George W. Bush and it is explained articulately and flawlessly in this book, "A Tragic Legacy". It is the best book I have read so far on our forty- third president.

Bush is besieged by his own world view, eloquently outlined by Greenwald in this book. Today's Washington Post portrait of an enbunkered Bush supports this: "Over sodas and sparkling water, he asks his questions: What is the nature of good and evil in the post-Sept. 11 world?" There is no gray in Bushworld. On a mission from his God, who speaks to and through him, Bush's legacy will be a crippled superpower vastly overextended in its ambitions for empire.

To learn how Bush's worldview got us into the trouble we're in, read Glenn Greenwald's book. Especially if you are a disillusioned former supporter of this president who wonders how we got here. Greenwald makes it very clear. Compelling, understandable, and honest.

Sometimes just coming to the end of the book is as important as reading it, kind of like reflecting on a vacation just completed. That is one of the gifts that Glenn Greenwald has as a writer and author, and gives to his readers.

His subtitle is "How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency." This is exactly what he explains in six chapters. It is frightening because it is predictable just as a parent may be able to predict the behavior of her child, or a husband predicts his spouse's.

The first facts we are given is the steady decline in Bush's popularity. Since 2002, those who strongly disapproved of him have increased and those who have strongly approved, decreased rendering the 43rd president the most unpopular president in our history. He proceeds to tell us why and how.

Bush sees himself as a Manichean warrior. A belief started by a Persian prophet in the 3rd century, it is a view that there are two forces in the world--good and evil. The forces of good may use whatever is necessary as long as it serves the good and works against evil. (Anyone who can recall anything George Bush has said in the past seven years will recognize the theme in his speeches.) This also precludes him from making errors or being wrong. The only people who are mistaken or wrong are those who think he has and is. And since he can use any tool at his disposal to fight evil, such as rendition, torture, or detention, it is not evil.

By defining himself in terms of good vs. evil may explain his lethargic approach to domestic issues and needs. There are no dragons to slay even if it is a hurricane that swallows an American city. George Bush was prepared to defend Americans against terrorism, but not against an attack from weather, or through our ports, or through our infrastructure, particularly if it means raising taxes.

For those who believe that George Bush is fighting the forces of evil, the people who challenge his actions are "terrorist lovers" who believe in "terrorist rights," and do not support our troops. For them, the charge of terrorism is as good as proof of terrorism because the Man has declared it so.

Here's the irony and the contradiction: By feeling that any strategy or weapon is at his disposal he has come to be seen by the world as the same evil he decries. By denying the rights of our citizens and those even of our allies, he has come to be hated as much as others have hated terrorism.

The second irony is that in detaining our citizens as enemy combatants, authorizing kidnappings and renditions to provide us with security, our security and our constitutional rights are being destroyed in the process. Detaining American citizens without charges, counsel, or communication with the outside world would have been considered unthinkable only a few short years ago.

Millions of people have been born since our invasion of a sovereign nation and have seen the tortures and degridation at abu-Ghraib. They only see the United States as evil. All that George Bush has tried to do has had the opposite effect.

And now, George Bush is concerned about his legacy, how people will see him. He has compared himself to Harry Truman, Abraham Lincoln, Lyndon Johnson, and FDR but falls woefully short in each comparison. Like most wartime presidents, he will be remembered as one, and one who has lost, and one who has disabled his own military, left a mountain of debt, with no singular domestic or foreign achievement.

Greenwald's arguments are backed up with a mountain of evidence. His writing is interesting, provocative, and persuasive. His message is very profound.

When you read this book, and I hope you do, maybe you will do the same thing I did at the end. You will exhale deeply and just think, and think some more about what our president has done, and what kind of legacy he leaves behind.

02 29 08: 325 days and a wake-up until the Forces of Evil leave office.


Also Recommended:

More About Bush:

Waldman, Paul, "Fraud: The Strategy Behind the Bush Lies and Why the Media Didn't Tell You."

Dean, John, "Worse than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George Bush."

Frank, Justin A. M.D., "Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President."

Greenwald, Glenn "How Would a Patriot Act: Defending America's Values from a President Run Amok."


More About his Constitutional Violations:

Center for Constitutional Rights, "Articles of Impeachment Against George Bush."

Byrd, Robert C., "Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant Presidency."

Miles, Steven, M.D., "Oath Betrayed: Torture, Medical Complicity, and the War on Terror"

I'll admit that I don't normally read books on politics. They tend to be repetitive, tedious. and, lately, depressing. Mr. Greenwald's book, however, has more than held my attention. His analysis of Bush's motivations (outwardly, at least) is spot-on and has brought many years of my hazy ideas about what's wrong with Bush's administration into sharp focus. He builds his case methodically and carefully. The weight of his evidence is staggering by the end of the book.

At first glance, the book is depressing. After all, its primary thesis is that Bush's criminally simplistic ideas about Good and Evil are needlessly causing the deaths of thousands of our soldiers and tens (hundreds?) of thousands of civilians abroad. Bush's inner "Manichean Warrior" is also behind the abandonment of our core American values and the anti-American sentiment throughout the world. While I feel daunted by the terrific "hole" Bush has gotten us into, I think Mr. Greenwald has supplied a valuable weapon in countering Bush's attempts to "dig his way out" by attacking Iran or taking some other similarly destructive course of action.

I couldn't help but feel like this book is ahead of its time. Most often, a few years of historical hindsight are necessary to put together a case like this. It is to Mr. Greenwald's credit that he has been able to cut through to a core issue behind this presidency while we are still in the throes of it.

Every American needs to read this book, whether "conservative," "liberal" or "moderate." This book may be our best departure point for discussion as the 2008 election season picks up speed. (If Bloomberg jumps in, the discussion should get more interesting).

This is not a partisan book, but a reasoned dissection of the psychopathology of the Bush movement by a once-apolitical constitutional lawyer who may be America's best blogger. Greenwald makes a powerful case that the simplistic good-versus-evil mentality of this movement is radical, destructive to our nation and antithetical to nearly 800 years of Anglo-American traditions. This book should be of particular interest for Republicans who are willing to distinguish time-honored conservative principles from drinking Bush Kool-Aid.

The evidence presented is damning and apparently irrefutable, as Greenwald uses his scalpel to expose the manner in which Bush squandered the goodwill from his admirable work after 9/11 and proceded to use "win-at-all-costs" Rovism to subvert the government, the media and the Constitution itself. His 2004 re-election only accelerated the tragedy, as his administration was already unraveling from within while Bush crowed about how he intended to spend his political capital.

As the 2008 election cycle begins prematurely as we long to get this mess behind us fast, the book should inspire us as citizens and primary voters to engage in tough, original independent thought, discussion and questioning. The radical Bush movement - wildly mischaracterized as "conservative" - has no apparent coherent idea other than pushing American exceptionalism through military power and media hectoring to fight "evil" (whether "Islamofascists" or "Liberals") while cutting taxes; borrowing from foreign creditors; "protecting" Israel; telling the rest of the world that our motives are pure because we are good and they are evil, and challenging the motives, character, sanity and patriotism of those with whom we disagree.

This cartoon-like dualism has left our military stretched to the breaking point, our nation's reputation in shreds, our treasury exhausted and increasingly beholden to Saudi and Chinese creditors as a global credit crisis beckons, our political dialogue poisoned, our media weakened and craven in the infotainment colosseum, and our Democratic Congress cowed for fear of appearing "weak" by standing up to torture and eavesdropping (witness the FISA vote). Certain pundits and contractors have grown rich, though.


Greenwald's clearly written and closely argued book bears careful reading, along with daily visits to Greenwald's first-rate blog in www.salon.com. Throughout the book, Greenwald hoists the administration and its enablers by their own petards, damning themselves in their own words, snared in their own contradictions. One can view this book as a print version of the famous Edward R. Murrow April 1954 telecast on Joe McCarthy, in which the senator from Wisconsin hanged himself. Unlike Murrow, however, Greenwald avoids the cheap shots most of the time.

The book is urgent because a cornered Bush and Cheney - as certain as ever of their rightness- are prone to lash out, either by stonewalling on Alberto Gonzales or - God forbid - ordering an air strike on Iran, on which the book uncovers a great deal of dangerous saber-rattling conducted in plain sight. Just last week, on Larry King, Cheney said something like: "It just takes 50 percent plus one," as if to say the Commander-in-Chief can do as he wishes for four years, once elected.

This book can be read with Vice: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency, by Dubose and Bernstein, Second Chance by Zbigniew Brzezinski and Running on Empty by Pete Peterson. These books complement each other in describing the mindset and consequences of the current regime.

Once outside its good-and-evil world, this administration has no clothes. Beholden to its simplistic "base," it is feckless, impotent and musclebound by its very hubris when faced with the administrative and political challenges and ambiguities of Iraq's sectarian conflicts and governance, Katrina, immigration, Social Security reform and the Dubai ports deal and other such issues. While the administration has started taking some reasonable measures - appointing Gates as SecDef (should have been there in the first place) and promoting Petraeus (ditto), and cobbling together a defensible, but failed, immigration bill - the hour is late indeed.

If it is our duty to toss "Bushism" on the ash heap of history, we also need solution-oriented, transpartisan ideas and independent thinking now more than ever.

In primary season, politicians will play to their extreme bases. Even in primary time, it is the responsibility of voters to rein them back to sense by questioning them politely and sharply in contrarian environments. (Before a Jewish group in a Florida condo? Ask them about dismantling settlements. Before an Arab-American group? Ask them exactly what they would propose on recognition of Israel and aiding direct talks with nearby Moslem countries, or about what Arab nations and the diaspora can do on Palestinians' behalf.)

This means that candidates from both parties need to be questioned closely and sharply about the deficit, entitlements, tax cuts, the role of Israel and Palestine and the politics of oil.

Isn't it time for a coalition-centered, solution-focused executive branch rather than 50 percent-plus-one radicalism? To get beyond the paralyzing, poisonous partisanship, voters could ask Democratic primary candidates if they would include Republicans in their administration, and Republicans if they would include Democrats.

Voters could ask Democrats if they are willing to break from certain predictable lobbies and interest groups (protectionist unions, say), and in what ways. They could get pinned on earmarks, and on what they would do about settlements in Palestinian territories.

Voters could ask Republicans why they wish to continue torture-rendition policies at the cost of our nation's reputation, the already-evident vulnerabilities of a permanent tax cut, and how they would bridge the partisan divide.

Any of these questions can be asked of anyone. In any case, informed bloggers like Greenwald remind us that we still have a great deal of power as citizens - if only we use it.

This is a very troubling book. Greenwald's analysis of Bush's ideology and actions fits with the strange pattern we have all observed in recent public events. At the same time, the author leads us to conclusions we have suspected but may have avoided. They tell us how easy it has been to lead us down the most Unamerican path imaginable.

Greenwald demonstrates that Bush is not a conservative. Discretionary non defense spending has greatly increased in this administration as have federal inroads into areas of state authority. He then argues that the president is not the dupe of Cheney, Rove or anyone else: "Each defining aspect of the administration has been shaped and determined by the worldview and personal leadership attributes of the president himself."

That worldview is "messianic, evangelical and Manichean." Bush essentially has a comic book view of the world in which he sees it as an arena for an "overarching conflict between the forces of Good and Evil." The enemy cannot be reasoned with but "can only be attacked, hated or destroyed." Government is not the problem as characterized by Ronald Reagan, but an agency to be expanded to combat Evil in all its forms (a distinctly non-conservative approach).

Concepts of the Enemy have been invoked as the most common tactic by the administration, argues the author, to justify policies and expenditures. The Bush movement comes to be defined only by what it is against. As John Dean says, "the need to wage war against perceived Evil and the shared (related) hatred of common enemies" is all that unifies the president and his allies.

Based in theological imperatives and fueled by the events of 9/11, Bush invaded Iraq, curtailed civil liberties, allowed the aggressive questioning of prisoners and villified all who disagreed with him without experiencing moments of doubt. In fact, Greenbaum says that Bush believes unpopularity is not something with which an officeholder should be concerned in a democracy. It is proof that you are fighting against the strong forces of darkness regardless of consequence.

This arguement helps explain Bush Administration initiatives which have little basis in conservative ideology. As we decide who will lead us out of the mess in which we find ourselves, it is important to understand the mind-set that got us here as well as who shares this failed and absurdly simplistic habit of thought.

This is worth reading and considering, although much gnashing of teeth will occur throughout.