The Bush Tragedy

by Jacob Weisberg

This is the book that cracks the code of the Bush presidency. Unstintingly yet compassionately, and with no political ax to grind, Slate editor in chief Jacob Weisberg methodically and objectively examines the family and circle of advisers who played crucial parts in George W. Bush’s historic downfall.

In this revealing and defining portrait, Weisberg uncovers the “black box” from the crash of the Bush presidency. Using in-depth research, revealing analysis, and keen psychological acuity, Weisberg explores the whole Bush story. Distilling all that has been previously written about Bush into a defining portrait, he illuminates the fateful choices and key decisions that led George W., and thereby the country, into its current predicament. Weisberg gives the tragedy a historical and literary frame, comparing Bush not just to previous American leaders, but also to Shakespeare’s Prince Hal, who rises from ne’er-do-well youth to become the warrior king Henry V.

Here is the bitter and fascinating truth of the early years of the Bush dynasty, with never-before-revealed information about the conflict between the two patriarchs on George W.’s father’s side of the family–the one an upright pillar of the community, the other a rowdy playboy–and how that schism would later shape and twist the younger George Bush; his father, a hero of war, business, and Republican politics whose accomplishments George W. would attempt to copy and whose absences he would resent; his mother, Barbara, who suffered from insecurity, depression, and deep dissatisfaction with her role as housewife; and his younger brother Jeb, seen by his parents as steadier, stronger, and the son most likely to succeed.

Weisberg also anatomizes the replacement family Bush surrounded himself with in Washington, a group he thought could help him correct the mistakes he felt had destroyed his father’s presidency: Karl Rove, who led Bush astray by pursuing his own historical ambitions and transforming the president into a deeply polarizing figure; Dick Cheney, whose obsessive quest to restore presidential power and protect the country after 9/11 caused Bush and America to lose the world’s respect; and, finally, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice, who encouraged Bush’s foreign policy illusions and abetted his flight from reality.

Delving as no other biography has into Bush’s religious beliefs–which are presented as at once opportunistic and sincere–The Bush Tragedy is an essential work that is sure to become a standard reference for any future assessment. It is the most balanced and compelling account of a sitting president ever written.


From the Hardcover edition.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Biography, History, Presidents, Audiobook, American History

304 pages, Hardcover

First published January 29, 2008

About the author

Jacob Weisberg (born 1964) is an American political journalist, who served as editor-in-chief of The Slate Group, a division of Graham Holdings Company. In September 2018, he left Slate to co-found Pushkin Industries, an audio content company, with Malcolm Gladwell. Weisberg was also a Newsweek columnist. He served as the editor of Slate magazine for six years before stepping down in June 2008. He is the son of Lois Weisberg, a Chicago social activist and municipal commissioner.

Reviews

[Joe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Book twenty of my Presidential Challenge.

I'm nearing the halfway point of my challenge and some tough decisions have to be made. Decision points if you will. Do I put off reading about Dubya? I knew if I wasn't careful I'd put this one off until the very end and I was dreading the hell out of that so I bit the bullet and got this one from the library.

Man, was I dreading this. I'll paraphrase Indiana Jones when I say, George W. Bush, I hate this guy. I just wanted him to fade away and paint his weird paintings and be rich and obscure. But alas, a challenge is a challenge.

But I gotta say, "The Bush Tragedy" was a great read! It really examined how and why Dubya turned out the way he did. I found the relationships between him and his father, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney FASCINATING! His life really is a tragedy in every sense of the word in that it has been a tragedy for him, for the country and for the world.

It's just a job he should have never had. That's not a burn, most people shouldn't be President. It's really hard and usually even if you are good, you're surrounded by so many jerks that you can't accomplish much anyway.

Dubya was surrounded by two groups of people: Those who didn't believe in him and those who didn't believe in him and manipulated him. To be clear, no one, not even Dubya, ever thought he was up to the job and boy howdy, was he right.

You can tell the author is an elite east coast liberal because there is a running Shakespearian comparison that runs through the whole book. I enjoy that precisely because I know that Cheney and Dubya would hate it (while Rove would totally LOVE it).

Cheney in particular scares the crap out of me. He was able to masterfully manipulate Dubya with passive aggressive comments referencing President Reagan and knowing Dubya's inferiority complex with his dad. Rove seemed pretty tragic to me.

Unlike Cheney, Rove didn't really seem to care about policy. The whole Game of Thrones (if you will) was truly just a game for him and just a means to an end. Our team vs. their team stuff. Simple as that. He was a nerd who had a horrible family life growing up and was appropriately super messed up from it.

Dubya saw himself as a combination of Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. This totally makes sense. The problem, he only copied them on a superficial level. He liked their swagger and their style. He just chose to ignore (or more realistically, probably never knew) that they both used large government whenever it suited their purposes. I mean Teddy busted trusts for Pete's sake! Reagan PEACEFULLY got the Berlin Wall to come down. Both reached across the aisle (Teddy even made his own aisle briefly with the Bull Moose Party).

I'm glad I read this book. I was expecting a hate fest but it was actually a fairly reasoned accounting of some of the darkest days in out country's history. A must read.

[Ed · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Bush presidency as viewed through the lens of family psychology or as Harold Blum might put it: Freud as viewed by Shakespeare. Makes a convincing case that the Bush family history and George W Bush's personal demons explain much about the presidency. Moreover, Shakespeare's Henry iv parts 1 and 2 and Henry V also throw considerable light on Bush's behavior and psyche. Interestingly, Bush treated the man who put in the White House, Karl Rove, like a servant and didn't even invite him to his birthday parties while in the White House. So much for Bush's common man facade. Just another spoiled undisciplined, unreflective little rich boy working out his demons on us all.

[Jack · Rating 4 out of 5]

Okay, so I said it was time to take a break from books on Iraq for my blood pressure's sake. But this isn't a book about Iraq exclusively; it's about Bush...and exploring his personality and how it has driven his presidency, including in Iraq. That might mitigate this as a "lapse."

There is also something appealling in how Weisberg treats the failures of the Bush presidency, which is to say, he just accepts in his intro that the presidency is a failure, and does not belabor the argument in his text. Instead, moving from that premise, he tries to understand just why and how it became a failure. Ironically, this left me a little less frustrated than the stuff I've been reading on the administration. Weisberg portrays bush unflatteringly, but he doesn't demonize him. He makes an earnest effort to understand him without pulling punches.

I was pleasantly surprised by this book. I was a little skeptical of the book's central - and not exactly unique argument - that most of Bush's actions and beliefs stem from his relationship with his family and especially his father. And the centrality of Shakespeare's "Henry" plays also made me wary. But it works. Weisberg's analyses of Bush and the people around are three dimensional, well thought out, and overall convincing and insightful. The chapter on Bush's religion is best, neither oversimplifying it nor discrediting its makeup and influence.

[Marguerite Hargreaves · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great explanation of why W is the way he is, and why he did what he did. I could have done without the Henry IV, Henry V Shakespeare parallels, but I found the modern-day conjecture (Yes, in the end it's still conjecture) totally plausible. And, even though it's billed as a tragedy, Weisberg had some fun with it. It's laugh-aloud silly at times, particularly in the chapters on Bush's religious language (as opposed to any real beliefs) and Karl Rove and his "Brokeback Mountain" lusting after Junior. It's a cautionary tale, and is worth reading by anyone who votes.

[Marin · Rating 3 out of 5]

George W Bush presidency was marked by 9/11 and subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The last one was worse than a disaster and we will all live with its dire consequences.
The book seems very well documented and insists on proving the importance of family genes, Oedipus complex, money and social status in the making of George W Bush and on demonstrating the vacuity of his persona.
The arguments are in part repetitive and despite a lot of data, the book doesn’t bring new facts or points of view (other than psychoanalytical). Important periods from his presidency are not dealt with. Long chapters on Karl Rowe and Dick Cheney are used only to emphasize he was a straw man.
It is more of a long argument than an objective analysis of the man and his time.

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

As far as I'm concerned, the three books which give you the whole picture on GWB are David Corn's "The Lies of George W Bush", Hatfield's "Fortunate Son" (and the movie "Horns and Halos", which is about the poor bastard's tortured biographical efforts and subsequent pillorying upon release. It's a sad, sad tale well worth the viewing) and this one.

Weisberg's already a crack political essayist, thinker, and reporter for the eponymous Slate magazine. This book gives a graceful, measured, even-handed, and ultimately pretty much completely damning portrait of one of the worst presidents this country has ever had.

The framing of the bio with Shakespeare's Henriad is an excellent, eloquent way to illustrate Bush and his relationships with history, family, and himself.

Weisberg doesn't hyperventilate or sermonize, he simply sits back and tells the tale full and true and doesn't leave out that he actually enjoys Bush's company personally (he was on the campaign plane in 2000 with the rest of the press corps) and has a certain measure of pity for the man.

The point is, if I'm not mistaken or putting too many words in Weisberg's mouth, is that GWB has had a lifetime to grapple with his father's shadow and had a burning desire to forge his own identity out from under it. He has failed, failed miserably, the detriment of the country and the rest of the world. He's not necessarily an evil person, or even a ruthless one, he has tried to carve out a legacy for himself which is and was (and will probably forever be) way too big for his capabilities. He's gone way too in over his head since he began his project of self-creation, and though many of his causes and personal beliefs are genuine and honestly felt, he doesn't understand what it takes to live up to them. And he's not stupid- not at all. He's just not, and most likely will never be, the man he has always dreamed of being.

I think, and I gather that Weisberg thinks, that GWB knows this pretty thoroughly either deep down or perhaps quite clearly and thus, in my own humble opinion, must live with the fate of staring up at the massive obelisk of his own shmuckitude until the day he dies. He's not nearly cunning enough or Machiavellian enough to be a Kissinger or, even, a Rove. He's got to realize that he's undergone the supreme test of himself- as President, son, man, etc- and has been weighed in the balance and come up dreadfully wanting.

Who among us would be able to deal with this pathetic and embarrassing fact, made public and veritably global, and sleep well at night?

This is of course not to excuse his awful effect on the country, it's just to point out what I think often gets missed- that not only did he pour a giant bowl of shmuckitude over the entire political and social landscape but he has to know it and swim in it for the rest of his life. I wonder what he sees when he looks into Laura's eyes when he settles in to bed at night. I wish I didn't have an idea as to the answer. And I definitely don't wish that we as a country have had to ride in the wake of his sad, hapless, incontrovertibly obvious, indeed tragic, loserdom.

[Doug · Rating 2 out of 5]

If you hate George Bush (41 or 43) you will love this book. It gives you plenty of gossip to justify your hate. If you love 41 or 43 you will hate this book. This book recites one tired cliche after another about how Junior had Daddy issues. Objective, well-informed readers will have trouble.

I judge a non-fiction book partly by how many factual inaccuracies I can identify. Within the first few minutes of the audio performance, the author had made several gaffs about topics I know (and confirmed later, just to be sure.) President Bush (#41) flew a TBM, a torpedo bomber. The author called it a fighter. Umm, no. The author "quote" W as saying he wanted to fly fighters like my dad. And relates how #43 landed on an aircraft carrier about an S3 Viking fighter. The S3 is not a fighter plane.

Since this was an audio performance, I judge the reader by whether or not he/she can pronounce the words in the text. The audio performer mispronounced Grumman (it's not grew-man). All the above are within the first few minutes. He later mispronounced Verdun, as Verdune.

Why would I believe any of the facts the author claims after the author has delivered multiple factually incorrect statements? To be honest, I didn't have time to go to the library and get a different book. Because there was no good reason to continue.

This book is lots of psycobabble. There are several reports of this is what so-and-so but this is what it really means. 41 avoid conflict of any kind (yeah, decorated pilots are like that) so Barbara was the family enforcer. George couldn't live up to his parents standards so Jeb had to pick up the family banner, creating tension that lasts until today. Wow. This pattern repeated itself over and over again for the first 60% of the book, when I finally got to the library.

All of my animus toward the book (and it's sub-standard performance) have nothing to do with my opinion of either Bush, Sr. or Bush, Jr. It's just a bad book, read by a bad reader.

[Smiley III · Rating 5 out of 5]

In invoking Henry IV, Weisberg seems to be bringing up the Shakespeare most relevant to the modern age: Gus Van Sant (My Own Private Idaho), Kenneth Branagh (whose Henry V brought him fame and notice to both himself and his then-wife, Emma Thompson; it is mentioned in the text, and is a favorite of the Bushes 🤔 #HMMM ), Orson Welles (whose Chimes at Midnight, about Falstaff, is about one of the "most important characters in Shakespeare" -- or whatever-he-said[1]). Maybe it's the notion of a sequel: Henry IV, Part 2 seemed to inaugurate this trend/impulse, this feeling of "we'll be right back -- and just wait, we've got MORE!!!" that leads us up to Lethal Weapon, Part 2, etc. Maybe it's the idea of a trilogy -- it does end with Henry V, after all, like Return of the Jedi and The Return of the King. Maybe Americans just like people who get their "Ya-Yas out," as the Rolling STONES sez, and ignore the larger lesson about who gets to leave who behind -- something Gus VAN SANT doesn't, Hal might as well be doing GAY PORN as drinking and thieving with Falstaff, it's who gets to stay and who gets to leave, who's a tourist and who's got a trust fund, who's gonna burn out in two weeks if not two years and who's gonna . . . well, you know.

Here's the text:

Rove recalled his first impression in an interview with Nicholas Lemann of The New Yorker:

'"It was the day before Thanksgiving, 1973," Rove said. "Chairman Bush's chief of staff called me and said, 'I've got to be at a meeting on the Hill, the chairman's got to be at a meeting at the White House, the other people in the office have already gone, and the eldest son's going to be coming down from Harvard. He's going to arrive at the train station, early afternoon. He'll call over here when he gets to the train station. Meet him down in the lobby and give him the keys to the family car.' I can literally remember what he was wearing: and Air National Guard flight jacket, cowboy boots, blue jeans, complete with the—in Texas you see it a lot—one of the back pockets will have a circle worn in the pocket from where you carry your tin of snuff, your tin of tobacco. He was exuding more charisma than any one individual should be allowed to have."'

Rove has given off this same Brokeback Mountain vibe in other descriptions of the encounter: "Huge amounts of charisma, swagger, cowboy boots, flight jacket, wonderful smile, just charisma—you know, wow," Rove recalled to Frank Bruni of The New York Times.

George W.'s good looks and his Cool Hand Luke pose don't fully explain the spell. Nor, impressive though it seemed to a history-and-politics buff like Rove, was it simply his political pedigree. More than any of those things, Rove was awed by the insouciance with which the young man wore his privilege. The kid was Andover, Yale, Harvard, a Bush—and didn't seem impressed with any of it. The smoldering cowboy intensified the effect by taking no notice of the enraptured ranch hand. Indeed, the significance of this first encounter is that Rove immediately begins to idealize Bush, and that Bush doesn't register Rover at all.

This book is more higher-road than it has any right to be, or more than any of us have the right to expect — we're still too irritated. Maybe working with Robert Rubin on In an Uncertain World taught him to be more even-handed. Maybe editing six editions (six!) of Bushisms got a lot out of his system, that it wouldn't have for us -- just jeering at the screen, jeering at being jeered at. Still, Rove's description of Bush reminds me of two others, and they weren't presidents to succeed (the successor of) Reagan:

"I remember the meeting very clearly. Unbelievably, I saw this guy, I thought, Wow, he's got such charisma. He wasn't doing anything. He was just walking. Remember. You know, he was Bob. But you felt something from him."
-Al Pacino, on first meeting Robert De Niro, when both were in their twenties

(Adrian Lyne has said this about Robert REDFORD, the "only real movie star I've ever worked with," who's like that just WALKING -- but I can't find the quote, sorry!!! 🤔 #aww #SHUCKS 😉 👍 #YEAH )

These are the people who rule things. These are the people who carry things -- with gravitas.

Weisberg takes you through all of it, through those careful to be near Bush (Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, etc.), but not too close -- which seem to be the trick of it. Chapter by chapter, we find out how his father's reticence, his continuing to listen to all sides (and the second-best impressions of him formed during the Nixon administrations on down, because of it), led his son to feel he suffered from a lack of vision because of it, and privilege being "decisive" and "leaving details to others" in the wake of it -- hence the title, "The Bush Tragedy," and the Iraq War, etc. We haven't mopped most of those details up. We're still living with the initial decisions.

This is a book well worth reading. And at 242 pages, a manageable one -- still, though, at seven chapters, equally doled out and skillfully paced, you'll find your head spinning. You'll want to read one chapter at a time.

This is a lot to take in.

A lot.

This is the eagle, bird's-eye aerie view of what happened -- their motives, their skill sets, the labor. Weisberg never resorts to cant and instead shows us what people believe is what people themselves have to navigate as though it was a slalom course.

Well worth reading -- for anyone. Maybe particuarly those starting out in life, college students, say.

-EJB/Orwell (past LIVES!!!)

😉

👍

#YEAHHHHH

#FATPIGMUSTDIE

#DIEEEEE

#HAW

[1] Welles said he considered Falstaff "Shakespeare's greatest creation" (this from someone who knew Shakespeare, all the parts, inside and out, and was QUITE COMFORTABLE switching parts, locales, and other things AROUND 🙄 😉 👍 #YEAH ), and he said of "Chimes at Midnight," his Falstaff film, that "If I wanted to get into heaven on the basis of one movie, that's the one I would offer up. I think it's because it is to me the least flawed; let me put it that way. It is the most successful for what I tried to do. I succeeded more completely in my view with that than with anything else." (I found this out on Wikipedia -- look it up!) - ed.

[Ray · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author begins his story well before Bush 43’s presidency, going back to earlier Bush and Walker generations for traits and characteristics. Actually, the author seems to go back much earlier than that, alluding to parallels between George Bush #43 and Shakespeare’s Prince Hal from Henry IV and Henry V. In those plays, Prince Hal starts as a wild, undisciplined Prince, unsuited to kingship, and as he evolves to become a mature man, declares that his riotous time will come to a close, and he will re-assume his rightful high place in affairs by showing himself worthy of his father and others through some noble exploits, ultimately embarking on an attempted conquest of France.

In the story line development, Weisberg looks at historical family characteristics, and how Bush 43 and Bush 41 developed totally different styles. Where Bush 41 was more deliberate and thoughtful, seeking advice and counsel and making deliberate decisions, Bush 41 adopted a more go-with his-gut style, making quick decisions and never looking back. Weisberg also point out how these traits fit well with Dick Cheney’s style making him, behind the scenes, the most powerful V.P. in history.

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Generally, a very well-researched and reported work by a well-respected journalist. Only quibble is that Weisberg strains a little to hard to cast Bush pere et fils in their own personal Henry IV/V cycle and is a little heavy with the pop psychology. Bush, unprepared for his role as a wartime president, falls back on the two things which got him through his bout with the bottle: a rather unsophisticated faith and personal force of will. Good tools for self-help, but not diplomacy. Into this void step Cheney, whose goal is to advance the security state at all costs, and Rove, who envisions a domestic political scene dominated by Republicans. The results are well known and not pretty. In one of the most damning scenes, at the height of the anthrax scare in fall 2012, Cheney argues, against the advice of public health advisers, that all Americans must be vaccinated against the fungus, knowing full well that hundreds would die because of adverse affects of the vaccine. The vaccine is delivered, though by that time scare has passed. Bush is vaccinated as a show of god faith; Cheney refuses.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book in two intense bursts of hate-stalgia. (Don't you remember how pure your hatred was back then, how alienated you felt from your country?) But the book wasn't just a trip down bad memory lane and taught me quite a bit. I'd love to make a movie about Karl Rove, whose story is far stranger and sadder than I ever knew. (W. won't even invite him to his birthday parties!) And then there's Cheney, whose belief in presidential power is stressed time and again, not as a matter of expediency but as a goal in itself. (Cheney would prefer Bush not get a war vote because he doesn't believe the president should. Cheney seemed to support 'enhanced interrogation' not for any benefit in torture itself but because it's the President's right to torture people, Goddamnit.) Even the back story about how the Walkers and the Bushs made their money is interesting. Granted, the Henry V stuff is a little forced, and it could use the perspective of a post-2008 pub date, but it's well-worth a read.

[Dmitry · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is sober and only occasionally vicious. Without sarcasm or paranoia it provides a well-documented, level-headed explanation for the major mistakes made by the major players in Bush's administration. With regard to the personalities involved (the two Bushes', Cheney's and Karl Rove's), although it references Freud's book on Woodrow Wilson, it does not engage in remote sensory psychoanalysis, but draws straightforward, reasonable inferences from established, universally acknowledged events in the president's personal history. The book is short (under 300 pages,) and its focus is perhaps too narrow: there is no discussion of Bush's war on environmental science or stem cell research; there is very little on Katrina, Valerie Plame, torture, energy policy, gay marriage, domestic spying, Terry Shiavo, illegal immigrants, etc. But there is a lot on terrorism, Iraq, and Bush's personal religion and character, and it all rings true.

[Chris Aylott · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some good history here, and I agree with Weisberg's thesis that George W. Bush is driven by the contradictory desires to emulate, compete with, and distance himself from his father. I'm familiar with these feelings, and I suspect many other sons of successful fathers are too.

But there is a nasty, scornful edge to this book that doesn't sit well with me. Weisberg claims objectivity early on, but somehow even W's better traits are portrayed in the worst possible light. The man has plenty of flaws, but I feel like there's some fundamental decency and good intentions that the book overlooks.

Robert Caro is able to write about Lyndon Johnson with sympathy, even though all the evidence indicates that Johnson was a horrible, awful person (who did some evil, and a lot of good). Hopefully a similar biographer will find George W. in a few decades, when tempers have cooled. This book is on to some important ideas, but it is too much of its times.

[Gramma Lo · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a fascinating look at George W. Bush -- the man and his presidency -- from the point of view of his family background and significant adult relationships. The chapters on W's extended family background, his relationships with Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, and the evolution of his foreign policy are especially compelling.

Weisberg uses Shakeseare's plays, Henry IV Parts I and II and Henry V, to highlight how W's relationship with his father has been a consistent influence in his decision-making and his entire career, pre- and post-White House.

Your ultimate satisfaction with this portrait will doubtless be influenced by your political opinions. But whether you are among the President's fans or among his detractors, this is an insightful, well-written look at a man who ends his Presidency with his legacy at best a big question mark.

I recommend this book highly.

[Nick Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Though at times Weisberg's reliance on his Henriad metaphor gets in the way of his argument (not to mention it carries just the kind of intellectualizing that Bush would hate), overall this is a fascinating psychological study of Bush and the failure of his presidency, combining keen insight with hard facts for an involving read. And the Henriad metaphor is pretty well-drawn, even if I think it's called back too often. One can only hope that our next president, Republican or Democrat, actually cares about facts and critical thinking, and not being popular/having a legacy/imposing his own beliefs on others. And stuff.

[Monica · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very readable, accessible and informative account of the reasons behind the failings of George W. Bush's two term presidency. Jacob Weisberg situates and explains the struggle and the ultimate failure of 'Dubya's presidency in relation to his complicated family history and in particular to Bush Senior. The theory put forward is deceptively simple to follow, entertaining and convincing. I would be interested to see to what extent other readers who know more about Bush and have delved more into the subject find the psychoanalytical approach to Bush's character, political career and ultimate place in history convincing. Marin Popa and Irina Popa anyone?

[Brian Ayres · Rating 4 out of 5]

A lot of the information Weisberg melds together is rehashed from previous works on the Bush dyanasty, Dick Cheney and Karl Rover. However, his thesis that Bush 43's life resembles a Shakespearean tragedy was interesting to read. This book provides a sound personality assessment of a president who will more than likely go down as leading eight of the most wasted years in the previous 100 in this country.

[Marsha · Rating 5 out of 5]

Weisburg looks at Bush and Walker family traits, the relationship between Bush & his parents, the psychology of the families, plus Rove and Chaney and how it affected the policies and decisions of the Bush administration. Gave me another perspective for thinking about politicians and politics. Added another facet to my critical decision making thoughts, that I think, will help me to better analyze politics and politicians in the future.

[Ellie Revert · Rating 4 out of 5]

Painful to read, but even more painful to live through this administration. How can we Americans get it so wrong---and then do it a second time?? Very well written. 3 years later--started reading, forgot I'd read it before--would give it 2 stars---and now find that it's already in "my books"--so I am letting it go partway through and wondering about my sanity, my memory!

[Murray · Rating 2 out of 5]

In attempting to make psychological sense about George W. Bush, Weisberg pushes the argument too far and evokes a stream of psychobabble. He likens Dubya to Prince Hal and everything that follows is forced into that framework. In an attempt to make one of my least favorite presidents look bad he actually excuses Dubya from just being incompetent.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

As with most things about the Bush admin. my interest is tempered by my disgust. Only got about 100 pages into this thing. My entire 30s have been spent with this horrible person and his cohorts in charge of America. It's a depressing notion.

[Paul Toth · Rating 3 out of 5]

Jesus Christ, for a while, I thought I was beginning to feel something approaching empathy. But in the end, it cannot be denied that the tragedy is ours, and so my empathy was actually directed towards myself, as usual.

[Maria Miller · Rating 5 out of 5]

Riveting....and freakin' scary.

[Carol Storm · Rating 5 out of 5]

Loved this book -- worth it for the Shakespearean parallels alone!

[Jason · Rating 4 out of 5]

I feel like I should apologize for voting for GWB. I beg your forgivness.

[Elisabeth · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dysfunctional family screws up the entire world...

[Louise Hite · Rating 4 out of 5]

WOW! I never knew this stuff! I'm pretty apolitical, so no one should be surprised. I always figured George W (43) was fully supported by George HW (41) and Barbara. But according to this, I was wrong. The son they preferred to excel was (is? posthumously of course) Jeb. George W had a "fun" college career. He got into Yale because of the Bush legacy and somewhat coasted through. I think there was a Harvard MBA next. But after that proved himself by striving to become a respected businessman in his own right and even bought the Texas Rangers team. At some point Karl Rove was a trusted political career coach and facilitator. Pre Presidency era, George W overcame alcoholism which improved his relationship with Laura and saved their marriage. Chaney was a loved, fatherly, and trusted VP. To demonstrate the Bushes parental favoritism, the book tells about the time George W and Jeb were running for the respective Governor positions and George W won and Jeb lost. When W talked to his Dad, Dad said he felt bad for Jeb. W asked, "Why can't you be happy for me?" Now, I'm no therapist, but that pretty much sums up how he was raised and probably why he acted out so much.
The book was well written and easy to read.

[Joel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Weisberg is not a sympathetic analyst, but for those of us who are more sympathetic to Bush’s politics there is much to learn here about self-deception and poor leadership and how this led to the lost opportunity which was the George W. Bush presidency and left the barren Republican Party open to the disaster of the 2016 primaries.

[Phil · Rating 1 out of 5]

H.W. worship wrapped up in a tepid, overwrought Shakespearean Drama of W. as the failed son of an American titan. It ham-handedly sells the father as a peerless executive that Georgie boy couldn't live up to for psychological reasons. Instead junior was an extension of the same corrupt ideology placing corrupt Texas oil money over all other interests. Don't bother.

[Bettie Gross · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great man