What do you think?
Rate this book
Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Barton Gellman’s newsbreaking investigative journalism documents how Vice President Dick Cheney redefined the role of the American vice presidency, assuming unprecedented responsibilities and making it a post of historic power.
Dick Cheney changed history, defining his times and shaping a White House as no vice president has before— yet concealing most of his work from public view. Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post reporter Barton Gellman parts the curtains of secrecy to show how Cheney operated, why, and what he wrought.
Angler, Gellman’s embargoed and highly explosive book, is a work of careful, concrete, and original reporting backed by hundreds of interviews with close Cheney allies as well as rivals, many speaking candidly on the record for the first time. On the signature issues of war and peace, Angler takes readers behind the scenes as Cheney maneuvers for dominance on what he calls the iron issues from Iraq, Iran, and North Korea to executive supremacy, interrogation of Al Qaeda suspects, and domestic espionage. Gellman explores the behind-the- scenes story of Cheney’s tremendous influence on foreign policy, exposing how he misled the four ranking members of Congress with faulty intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, how he derailed Bush from venturing into Israeli- Palestinian peace talks for nearly five years, and how his policy left North Korea and Iran free to make major advances in their nuclear programs.
Domestically, Gellman details Cheney’s role as “super Chief of Staff ”, enforcer of conservative orthodoxy; gatekeeper of Supreme Court nominees; referee of Cabinet turf; editor of tax and budget laws; and regulator in chief of the administration’s environment policy. We watch as Cheney, the ultimate Washington insider, leverages his influence within the Bush administration in order to implement his policy goals. Gellman’s discoveries will surprise even the most astute students of political science.
Above all, Angler is a study of the inner workings of the Bush administration and the vice president’s central role as the administration’s canniest power player. Gellman exposes the mechanics of Cheney’s largely successful post-September 11 campaign to win unchecked power for the commander in chief, and reflects upon, and perhaps changes, the legacy that Cheney—and the Bush administration as a whole—will leave as they exit office.
Dick Cheney changed history, defining his times and shaping a White House as no vice president has before— yet concealing most of his work from public view. Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post reporter Barton Gellman parts the curtains of secrecy to show how Cheney operated, why, and what he wrought.
Angler, Gellman’s embargoed and highly explosive book, is a work of careful, concrete, and original reporting backed by hundreds of interviews with close Cheney allies as well as rivals, many speaking candidly on the record for the first time. On the signature issues of war and peace, Angler takes readers behind the scenes as Cheney maneuvers for dominance on what he calls the iron issues from Iraq, Iran, and North Korea to executive supremacy, interrogation of Al Qaeda suspects, and domestic espionage. Gellman explores the behind-the- scenes story of Cheney’s tremendous influence on foreign policy, exposing how he misled the four ranking members of Congress with faulty intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, how he derailed Bush from venturing into Israeli- Palestinian peace talks for nearly five years, and how his policy left North Korea and Iran free to make major advances in their nuclear programs.
Domestically, Gellman details Cheney’s role as “super Chief of Staff ”, enforcer of conservative orthodoxy; gatekeeper of Supreme Court nominees; referee of Cabinet turf; editor of tax and budget laws; and regulator in chief of the administration’s environment policy. We watch as Cheney, the ultimate Washington insider, leverages his influence within the Bush administration in order to implement his policy goals. Gellman’s discoveries will surprise even the most astute students of political science.
Above all, Angler is a study of the inner workings of the Bush administration and the vice president’s central role as the administration’s canniest power player. Gellman exposes the mechanics of Cheney’s largely successful post-September 11 campaign to win unchecked power for the commander in chief, and reflects upon, and perhaps changes, the legacy that Cheney—and the Bush administration as a whole—will leave as they exit office.
384 pages, Hardcover
First published September 1, 2008
104 people are currently reading
1750 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 187 reviews
September 21, 2009
This was an excellent book, based on Barton Gellman's Pulitzer Prize winning 2008 investigations and writings on National politics. As a Washington Post writer, Mr. Gellman had access to many in Cheney's inner circle and the Bush White House to put together this informative description of the Vice President's role in setting the tone and direction of the Administration. We've seen political cartoons over the past eight years with Dick Cheney as the ventriloquist, pulling the strings and putting words into the mouth of the Bush puppet sitting on his knee. A harsh depiction, perhaps, but as this book shows, there were some reasons for how that view became popular. How much of that stereotype was true, and how much was false was hard to know, until this book became available. This book answers a lot of those questions. It truly filled in a lot of gaps in the my understanding of the inner workings of the Bush Administration. Cheney had widely been reported to be the most powerful Vice President in American history. Few, if any, recent books explore the dynamics between the President and Vice President. Gellman does, and paints a clear picture of Cheney and his power, consistent with everything we've heard and read over these past eight years. The book also talks of other key members of Cheney's team, like David Addington, who was so central to many of the more unpopular and controversial initiatives of the Bush years. Gellman also points out some of the few in the Administration who were able to stand up to the powerful Cheney / Addington team such as Deputy Attorney General James Comey. (Comey was acting Attorney General who did not give in to the pressure from the White House to sign off on "illegal" spying when Ashcroft was hospitalized). If you're interested in understanding how Bush, who entered the Office as a Candidate envisioning policies such as "compassionate Conservatism", limiting global-warming, being a Uniter, championing Education reform and limited government, and then seemed to evolve into one of the Nation's most unpopular chief executives, should find this book very interesting. As Steve Clemons in the American Conservative stated, this is "an indispensable volume without which the Bush Presidency can't be understood".
December 13, 2025
The author is a well respected journalist who wrote for the Washington Post back in those days when the Post could boast on their header, “Democracy Dies in Darkness”. Since their heyday the Post has been purchased by one of the world’s richest men and that header might as well now read “Democracy Dies Under Corporate Ownership”.
Each chapter in the book is a long-form piece of journalism based on the original reporting at the time, each topic in chronological order except that the chapter on torture covers the September 11th attacks and goes through the wars in Iraq and Afganistan and this chapter overlaps the chapters devoted to the wars alone.
It is truly remarkable to witness the mechanations of a man so devious he was virtually a savant when it came to manipulating others. For example he controlled all the written communication that went to the oval office and could divert or prepare an effective challenge for any information that did not sit squarely with his own ideology. He also had access to the President's schedule and could plan accordingly. For example, when Christine Todd Whitman, initially head of the Environmental Protection Agency appeared to have scheduled a meeting with the President to voice her position on global climate change policy (an issue the President vowed to address when he was running for office), the Vice President scheduled his own meeting a week earlier. He came equipped with a draft Presidential Memo which the President signed declaring that the issue of global climate change was still contested in the scientific literature (not true, even then) and was not worth disrupting established business policy. As a result of being constantly undermined on this and other issues Christine Todd Whitman resigned in frustration.
As I was not living in the US at the time of the election it is difficult for me to weigh in on how much the President’s policy agenda was overwhelmed by the Vice President's ideological agenda. I may not have been inclined to embrace what Bush referred to as “compassionate conservatism”, but I do not know how to assess the remainder of his electoral rhetoric. At any rate the President was evidently a “big picture” kind of guy happy to leave the details of effective policy making to others. The Vice Present, having served in a host of prior administrations in some capacity, came on board with an eerie sense of how to operate the levers of government to suit his own beliefs. Whatever the President might believe was not entirely relevant as he was unlikely to get his hands dirty with any actual policy construction, not when he was surrounded by the Vice President and an able band of advisers who met on a weekly basis to keep the President on the straight and narrow.
I had always imagined that the former CEO of Haliburton was financially motivated in his quest for power and control, but this book sheds light on something far more nefarious in action. The Vice President had actually divested himself entirely from his business interests and could not benefit financially from his policy interference. This was back in the day when the appearance of corruption was taken far more seriously than it is now. Instead the Vice President was motivated entirely due to his ideological beliefs. He believed so strongly that he allowed himself all manner of behavior others might imagine immoral today.
Our chief immoral complaint has a lot to do with the leadup to the wars that a frightened population was coerced to embrace following the September 11th attacks in NYC and Washington DC. By this point I had returned to the country and was employed to provide services to those directly harmed by the events of 9/11. My clients either lost employment, housing, or a loved one. As a result very few were eager to terrorize the citizens of other countries as they each had first hand knowledge of what it meant to survive terror themselves. Not so the remainder of the country who furiously attended vigils wrapped in American flags while tearfully crying out for revenge at any cost. It was in this context that the Vice President fomented the idea that Saddam Hueisan conspired with Osama Bin Laden (not true), was searching out uranium yellow cake (not true), and had hid in the desert of Iraq weapons of mass destruction (not true). There was simply no end to the lies that were spread with the assistance of our legacy media to sow fear in an already disquieted nation taken entirely by surprise when the Twin Towers collapsed. If you harbored any doubt you were constantly reminded that we did not want the proof of these fears to come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
It was at this point in the narrative that my interest began to waver. In my work we often joked that the trauma experienced by our clients was contagious to those of us working in the field. While this is not clinically true, it is sort of true in another sense. Just by reading the daily news I could see evidence that we were being herded into a war footing with two countries that had no direct connection to the events of September 11th, while the country that was most implicated (Saudi Arabia) earned a kind of protective status by President Bush, being a fellow oilman and all that. With each passing day I saw that war was increasingly inevitable and cheered on by my fellow citizens who wanted someone to pay for all the fear they were experiencing. There was nothing I could do about it. This powerlessness has its own kind of PTSD associated with it. I was re-experiencing this trauma in reading these chapters.
I am not so soothed that we now know the truth of how we were led to war by an ideologically insane Vice President who had no apologies for all the lives lost as a result of his actions. I was not soothed when a former candidate for the Presidency claimed Dick Cheney as an ally in her quest to gain office. Cheney is an unindicted war criminal who died without having to be accountable for his crimes. Furthermore he helped change the shape of American politics forever. The current administration sees no need to ask permission of Congress before declaring war on Venezuela for far more flimsier reasons than Cheney manufactured following an attack on US shores. Here we stand on the cusp of war again. In this context I am supposed to celebrate the excellent reporting of a single journalist who reported the truth 25 years ago? Perhaps I should but it is difficult. The scares are yet too fresh. We do not appear to learn from our mistakes.
The last chapter in the book is on regime change. It is well documented that the US acts as if it has the right to dictate who should be in leadership in other countries all around the world. But not to worry. You are safe if you have for some reason been determined a “friend” to the US, regardless of any human rights abuses you may be known for. If your human rights abuses, however, do not correspond to the needs of the current administration, this could be called out as an excuse for intervention leading to regime change.
Cheney himself was photographed having read halfway through this book within two days of its publication. He even suggested that this writer did good research and recommended the book to others. You might get the impression that this means Cheney approves of his characterization in the book, which at times make him look like Darth Vader. The truth is Cheney was so ideologically certain of his actions he was virtually immune from criticism. If the book shows him to be remarkably successful in accomplishing his evil deeds, he can just as easily take this as a compliment.
Cheney is safely dead now. We will no longer witness a candidate for higher office trot out Cheney and parade him around as proof their candidacy is worthy of support. But the damage done by Cheney will persist. We see evidence every day as the current administration prepares a plan for regime change in Venezuela. We don’t even think of asking Congress for permission anymore and the evidence trotted out to justify intervention is laughable at times, until you remember all those who have already been killed. As the power over such decisions becomes increasingly narrowed, who exactly will have the authority to stand up to such abuses? How will we be able to hold them accountable? From beyond the grave I can hear Cheney laugh at our powerlessness.
Each chapter in the book is a long-form piece of journalism based on the original reporting at the time, each topic in chronological order except that the chapter on torture covers the September 11th attacks and goes through the wars in Iraq and Afganistan and this chapter overlaps the chapters devoted to the wars alone.
It is truly remarkable to witness the mechanations of a man so devious he was virtually a savant when it came to manipulating others. For example he controlled all the written communication that went to the oval office and could divert or prepare an effective challenge for any information that did not sit squarely with his own ideology. He also had access to the President's schedule and could plan accordingly. For example, when Christine Todd Whitman, initially head of the Environmental Protection Agency appeared to have scheduled a meeting with the President to voice her position on global climate change policy (an issue the President vowed to address when he was running for office), the Vice President scheduled his own meeting a week earlier. He came equipped with a draft Presidential Memo which the President signed declaring that the issue of global climate change was still contested in the scientific literature (not true, even then) and was not worth disrupting established business policy. As a result of being constantly undermined on this and other issues Christine Todd Whitman resigned in frustration.
As I was not living in the US at the time of the election it is difficult for me to weigh in on how much the President’s policy agenda was overwhelmed by the Vice President's ideological agenda. I may not have been inclined to embrace what Bush referred to as “compassionate conservatism”, but I do not know how to assess the remainder of his electoral rhetoric. At any rate the President was evidently a “big picture” kind of guy happy to leave the details of effective policy making to others. The Vice Present, having served in a host of prior administrations in some capacity, came on board with an eerie sense of how to operate the levers of government to suit his own beliefs. Whatever the President might believe was not entirely relevant as he was unlikely to get his hands dirty with any actual policy construction, not when he was surrounded by the Vice President and an able band of advisers who met on a weekly basis to keep the President on the straight and narrow.
I had always imagined that the former CEO of Haliburton was financially motivated in his quest for power and control, but this book sheds light on something far more nefarious in action. The Vice President had actually divested himself entirely from his business interests and could not benefit financially from his policy interference. This was back in the day when the appearance of corruption was taken far more seriously than it is now. Instead the Vice President was motivated entirely due to his ideological beliefs. He believed so strongly that he allowed himself all manner of behavior others might imagine immoral today.
Our chief immoral complaint has a lot to do with the leadup to the wars that a frightened population was coerced to embrace following the September 11th attacks in NYC and Washington DC. By this point I had returned to the country and was employed to provide services to those directly harmed by the events of 9/11. My clients either lost employment, housing, or a loved one. As a result very few were eager to terrorize the citizens of other countries as they each had first hand knowledge of what it meant to survive terror themselves. Not so the remainder of the country who furiously attended vigils wrapped in American flags while tearfully crying out for revenge at any cost. It was in this context that the Vice President fomented the idea that Saddam Hueisan conspired with Osama Bin Laden (not true), was searching out uranium yellow cake (not true), and had hid in the desert of Iraq weapons of mass destruction (not true). There was simply no end to the lies that were spread with the assistance of our legacy media to sow fear in an already disquieted nation taken entirely by surprise when the Twin Towers collapsed. If you harbored any doubt you were constantly reminded that we did not want the proof of these fears to come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
It was at this point in the narrative that my interest began to waver. In my work we often joked that the trauma experienced by our clients was contagious to those of us working in the field. While this is not clinically true, it is sort of true in another sense. Just by reading the daily news I could see evidence that we were being herded into a war footing with two countries that had no direct connection to the events of September 11th, while the country that was most implicated (Saudi Arabia) earned a kind of protective status by President Bush, being a fellow oilman and all that. With each passing day I saw that war was increasingly inevitable and cheered on by my fellow citizens who wanted someone to pay for all the fear they were experiencing. There was nothing I could do about it. This powerlessness has its own kind of PTSD associated with it. I was re-experiencing this trauma in reading these chapters.
I am not so soothed that we now know the truth of how we were led to war by an ideologically insane Vice President who had no apologies for all the lives lost as a result of his actions. I was not soothed when a former candidate for the Presidency claimed Dick Cheney as an ally in her quest to gain office. Cheney is an unindicted war criminal who died without having to be accountable for his crimes. Furthermore he helped change the shape of American politics forever. The current administration sees no need to ask permission of Congress before declaring war on Venezuela for far more flimsier reasons than Cheney manufactured following an attack on US shores. Here we stand on the cusp of war again. In this context I am supposed to celebrate the excellent reporting of a single journalist who reported the truth 25 years ago? Perhaps I should but it is difficult. The scares are yet too fresh. We do not appear to learn from our mistakes.
The last chapter in the book is on regime change. It is well documented that the US acts as if it has the right to dictate who should be in leadership in other countries all around the world. But not to worry. You are safe if you have for some reason been determined a “friend” to the US, regardless of any human rights abuses you may be known for. If your human rights abuses, however, do not correspond to the needs of the current administration, this could be called out as an excuse for intervention leading to regime change.
Cheney himself was photographed having read halfway through this book within two days of its publication. He even suggested that this writer did good research and recommended the book to others. You might get the impression that this means Cheney approves of his characterization in the book, which at times make him look like Darth Vader. The truth is Cheney was so ideologically certain of his actions he was virtually immune from criticism. If the book shows him to be remarkably successful in accomplishing his evil deeds, he can just as easily take this as a compliment.
Cheney is safely dead now. We will no longer witness a candidate for higher office trot out Cheney and parade him around as proof their candidacy is worthy of support. But the damage done by Cheney will persist. We see evidence every day as the current administration prepares a plan for regime change in Venezuela. We don’t even think of asking Congress for permission anymore and the evidence trotted out to justify intervention is laughable at times, until you remember all those who have already been killed. As the power over such decisions becomes increasingly narrowed, who exactly will have the authority to stand up to such abuses? How will we be able to hold them accountable? From beyond the grave I can hear Cheney laugh at our powerlessness.
March 7, 2024
Barton Gellman worked for the Washington Post x 20
years when he wrote this book. I knew him from articles
for The Atlantic.
The author, hereafter BG, depicted VP Dick Cheney as
"pulling the strings" of President George W. Bush
or trying to change his mind IE on climate change.
He noted times when Bush got Cheney back on track.
BG said of him "Cheney's most troubling quality was
a sense of mission so acute that it drove him to seek
power without limit (61% mark )."
Cheney vetted Bush's VP candidates, requiring medical,
financial, FBI records. A thorough questionaire etc.
When Cheney slid into the VP position, Bush required
no such records from Cheney, who had a history of
heart attacks. Cheney was a fisherman & the Secret Svc.
code name for him was "Angler." IMO he tried to bend
others to his POV.
BG delved deeply into US officials suspecting Iraq of
"weapons of mass destruction" (unfounded), also the
treatment of enemy combatants. And the US use of
warrantless wiretaps. The VP & general WH counsel
David Addington distorted the law to fit their purpose.
Including expanding the role of the POTUS. These 2
convinced George W. he was the chief law enforcement
officer in the US! The US Constitution gave the POTUS
no such power. The executive branch via the Attorney
General oversaw the FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS, DOJ etc.
I knew the story of when 2 White House officials tried to
strong-arm for a signature, Attorney General Ashcroft,
who was in ICU. Acting AG James Comey intervened. But
Ashcroft, who was lucid, told the 2 WH men to leave. The
fall-out was 2 dozen Dept. of Justice employees, including
Comey + the FBI Chief Robert Mueller, threatened to resign.
George W. was oblivious to events leading up to this.
Condi Rice set him straight.
Spot-on political cartoonist Jim Borgman often depicted
Cheney as a mad man surrounded by bats & cobwebs.
Cheney had his hand in every foreign and domestic pie,
and even helped weaken or change for the worse, US
environmental & endangered species laws. Corporate
interests came before people, endangered animals or
clean air. Cheney was the only federal employee to date
to refuse an audit of his classified intel files (61%).
years when he wrote this book. I knew him from articles
for The Atlantic.
The author, hereafter BG, depicted VP Dick Cheney as
"pulling the strings" of President George W. Bush
or trying to change his mind IE on climate change.
He noted times when Bush got Cheney back on track.
BG said of him "Cheney's most troubling quality was
a sense of mission so acute that it drove him to seek
power without limit (61% mark )."
Cheney vetted Bush's VP candidates, requiring medical,
financial, FBI records. A thorough questionaire etc.
When Cheney slid into the VP position, Bush required
no such records from Cheney, who had a history of
heart attacks. Cheney was a fisherman & the Secret Svc.
code name for him was "Angler." IMO he tried to bend
others to his POV.
BG delved deeply into US officials suspecting Iraq of
"weapons of mass destruction" (unfounded), also the
treatment of enemy combatants. And the US use of
warrantless wiretaps. The VP & general WH counsel
David Addington distorted the law to fit their purpose.
Including expanding the role of the POTUS. These 2
convinced George W. he was the chief law enforcement
officer in the US! The US Constitution gave the POTUS
no such power. The executive branch via the Attorney
General oversaw the FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS, DOJ etc.
I knew the story of when 2 White House officials tried to
strong-arm for a signature, Attorney General Ashcroft,
who was in ICU. Acting AG James Comey intervened. But
Ashcroft, who was lucid, told the 2 WH men to leave. The
fall-out was 2 dozen Dept. of Justice employees, including
Comey + the FBI Chief Robert Mueller, threatened to resign.
George W. was oblivious to events leading up to this.
Condi Rice set him straight.
Spot-on political cartoonist Jim Borgman often depicted
Cheney as a mad man surrounded by bats & cobwebs.
Cheney had his hand in every foreign and domestic pie,
and even helped weaken or change for the worse, US
environmental & endangered species laws. Corporate
interests came before people, endangered animals or
clean air. Cheney was the only federal employee to date
to refuse an audit of his classified intel files (61%).
December 21, 2009
Hipsters and other types of partisan Democrats love the idea of Cheney as someone beyond a mere political adversary, but someone who truly embodies pure evil. There were times during the Bush administration that everyone must have been suspicious of such a characterization. Cheney did himself no favors by cloaking all his decisions, benign and otherwise, in a veil of secrecy and it certainly didn't help that he looks generally sinister anyway. Gellman's book peels back the cloak to reveal somewhat of a different picture than the Rachel Maddows of the world would have you believe. But only somewhat.
Cheney is not evil. His secrets were not entirely based on the premise that they were morally and legally questionable and he didn't want you to discover them--though that certainly played a part. Cheney, more than anything else, was a brilliant policy mind who firmly believed in robust and unitary executive power. He did not adopt this view in 2001 to further his or Bush's ambitions, he has always believed it. That this view differs from the majority of the public, media, and other key players in DC made him a political adversary but does not by nature make him a bad person. His knowledge of the federal government and its sources of power enabled him like no other vice president to achieve his goals. His innovative interpretation of the vice presidency as an extension and not simply a representation of presidential power changed the world.
People love to compare the Bush administration to Watergate, and there are striking similarities. But the key difference is that Nixon abused power for personal and political reasons. Cheney did not abuse power, he did not ignore laws; he reinterpreted them, and he did it for policy reasons, not evil or political. He took debates on things supposed to have only one objevtive answer--the law--and made them subjective, then used his intelligence and tools at his expense to win the subjective arguments. The very question of whether most of what he did was legal cannot be answered objectively--he changed the very merits by which we usually answer such a question.
But he did go too far. He did lie, and in some cases he very well may have broken the law. If deliberately lying to the House Majority Leader about national security secrets to make a case for war constitutes breaking a law, then Cheney broke it. When the Framers laid out our government, they might have been proud to know the chains and traps they included kept the chief executive of an evolving and expanding nation in check for over two hundred years. And they might have been terrified of just how far Dick Cheney was able to extend his reach. It is Dick Cheney who James Madison had in mind when writing the Federalist papers in favor of restrained executive power.
Perhaps the most intriguing part of all was that Cheney was able to do this as Vice President, an office literally intended to be an idle housekeeping and placekeeping position. Yet it seems unlikely that Cheney could've done what he did as President, where the tools of secrecy and back channels may not have been nearly as available to him.
As a friend of mine said, you can't fully understand the first decade of the 21st century without knowing the history of the Cheney Vice Presidency.
Cheney is not evil. His secrets were not entirely based on the premise that they were morally and legally questionable and he didn't want you to discover them--though that certainly played a part. Cheney, more than anything else, was a brilliant policy mind who firmly believed in robust and unitary executive power. He did not adopt this view in 2001 to further his or Bush's ambitions, he has always believed it. That this view differs from the majority of the public, media, and other key players in DC made him a political adversary but does not by nature make him a bad person. His knowledge of the federal government and its sources of power enabled him like no other vice president to achieve his goals. His innovative interpretation of the vice presidency as an extension and not simply a representation of presidential power changed the world.
People love to compare the Bush administration to Watergate, and there are striking similarities. But the key difference is that Nixon abused power for personal and political reasons. Cheney did not abuse power, he did not ignore laws; he reinterpreted them, and he did it for policy reasons, not evil or political. He took debates on things supposed to have only one objevtive answer--the law--and made them subjective, then used his intelligence and tools at his expense to win the subjective arguments. The very question of whether most of what he did was legal cannot be answered objectively--he changed the very merits by which we usually answer such a question.
But he did go too far. He did lie, and in some cases he very well may have broken the law. If deliberately lying to the House Majority Leader about national security secrets to make a case for war constitutes breaking a law, then Cheney broke it. When the Framers laid out our government, they might have been proud to know the chains and traps they included kept the chief executive of an evolving and expanding nation in check for over two hundred years. And they might have been terrified of just how far Dick Cheney was able to extend his reach. It is Dick Cheney who James Madison had in mind when writing the Federalist papers in favor of restrained executive power.
Perhaps the most intriguing part of all was that Cheney was able to do this as Vice President, an office literally intended to be an idle housekeeping and placekeeping position. Yet it seems unlikely that Cheney could've done what he did as President, where the tools of secrecy and back channels may not have been nearly as available to him.
As a friend of mine said, you can't fully understand the first decade of the 21st century without knowing the history of the Cheney Vice Presidency.
January 25, 2009
The author was a winner of the 2008 Pulitizer Prize. This book has the potential of making you mad, it did me. It focused on the full scope of Cheney's work and it's consequences, including going from al Qaeda to Iraq, spying on Americans, promoting torture, global warming, tax cuts for the wealthy, secret prisons, and how he operated politically in the White House. It's a great study of the Bush administration.
December 9, 2012
Terrifying, fascinating. Cheney comes off as an X-men-level supervillain and always, always the smartest guy in the room. I think, more than anything, I was really struck by the effort Mr. Gellman (and, by extension, I guess, everyone he interviewed) goes to to point out that G.W.B. was less dumb (and less apathetic) than we thought. This, honestly, sort of shakes up my whole worldview, but it also makes Cheney all the more terrifying in that over and over again we see that even the White House had no idea what he was up to.
(Also, worth reading the afterword in which we learn that Cheney himself rather enjoyed reading Angler.)
(Also, worth reading the afterword in which we learn that Cheney himself rather enjoyed reading Angler.)
January 18, 2009
Learned
1. Cheney is the man behind the power. He had his hands in _everything major_ or so it seems. As I read the book, it seemed like many major decisions were made w/o proper vetting/procedures being followed. THus, it seem like there were almost no types of consultation or critical thinking involved in making and enacting the decisions. From Abu Grab to torture to Fed rates to water management; this guy was making major policy decisions, often with minimal presidential .
2. Bush comes off as relatively inept/incurious/clueless president who basically signs off on just about every major decision manufactured by Cheney & his group.
3. THere are some links to Greenspan and at some point the Fed Chair became a relatively regular lunch guest at the WH, meeting with both Pres & VP.
Didn't know but now know
1. Iraq info most likely ''ginned up' with Tenet & FBI director out of the loop.
2. With Cheney's hands in a lot of circles, the OVP was able to unilaterally shape policy.
3. THe fact that he seems to think that the OVP was not part of the Executive branch and therefore somewhat immune from exec-oriented laws suggests that the VP office was pretty much operating as a show unto itself.
4. Also, because he wants to now seal his papers and keep them classified suggests that we won't know what he was up to for quite awhile.
1. Cheney is the man behind the power. He had his hands in _everything major_ or so it seems. As I read the book, it seemed like many major decisions were made w/o proper vetting/procedures being followed. THus, it seem like there were almost no types of consultation or critical thinking involved in making and enacting the decisions. From Abu Grab to torture to Fed rates to water management; this guy was making major policy decisions, often with minimal presidential .
2. Bush comes off as relatively inept/incurious/clueless president who basically signs off on just about every major decision manufactured by Cheney & his group.
3. THere are some links to Greenspan and at some point the Fed Chair became a relatively regular lunch guest at the WH, meeting with both Pres & VP.
Didn't know but now know
1. Iraq info most likely ''ginned up' with Tenet & FBI director out of the loop.
2. With Cheney's hands in a lot of circles, the OVP was able to unilaterally shape policy.
3. THe fact that he seems to think that the OVP was not part of the Executive branch and therefore somewhat immune from exec-oriented laws suggests that the VP office was pretty much operating as a show unto itself.
4. Also, because he wants to now seal his papers and keep them classified suggests that we won't know what he was up to for quite awhile.
November 24, 2008
add a crunchy top layer to the political casserole created by The Bush Tragedy, The Terror Presidency, Bush's Law and many many NYer articles.
neat summary of these past eight Wonderland years:
A three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit...said the classified files contained mere assertions, not evidence. When the government declared the intelligence reliable because in appeared in three different documents, the judges mocked that reasoning. "The fact that the government has 'said it thrice' does not make an allegation true. See Lewis Carroll, The Hunting of the Snark 3 (1876) ('I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true.')." The Bush Administration "comes perilously close to suggesting that whatever the government says must be treated as true, thus rendering superfluous both the role of the Tribunal and the role that Congress assigned to this court," the court wrote.
neat summary of these past eight Wonderland years:
A three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit...said the classified files contained mere assertions, not evidence. When the government declared the intelligence reliable because in appeared in three different documents, the judges mocked that reasoning. "The fact that the government has 'said it thrice' does not make an allegation true. See Lewis Carroll, The Hunting of the Snark 3 (1876) ('I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true.')." The Bush Administration "comes perilously close to suggesting that whatever the government says must be treated as true, thus rendering superfluous both the role of the Tribunal and the role that Congress assigned to this court," the court wrote.
February 23, 2009
Why am I reading this?!? Haven't I had enough of these scuzz bags? I read excerpts in the Washington Post before it came out in book form. Still... it's interesting to know that Cheney engineered copies of all emails sent to Bush by his cabinet to be sent to him, that Bush actually started out with a position on global warming before Cheney reversed course through some of his deft bureaucratic maneuvering. I'm blasting through this pretty quickly to get further exposure to the Dickster over with... but it's hard to undo all the tacky habits of living under the Dorky Duo...
I'm a little ashamed.
I'm a little ashamed.
July 16, 2015
A petrifying view into the imperial vice presidency, with an amazing array of Washington insiders - many quoted by name for the first time. Gellman's research is prodigious, his access is amazing, and the sometimes previously unknown stories are often chilling.
October 13, 2018
''Cheney prepared his energy plan at the greatest possible distance from public view. Before starting to work, he directed David Addington, his general counsel, to devise a structure that would leave the task force beyond the reach of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. That was the open-government law that gave so much grief to Hillary Clinton in 1993, exposing the records of her health care task force to political attack. ''He was very critical at many points at the way in which he felt presidents would yield in giving up information,'' said Michael Malbin, a long-standing ally of Cheney on executive secrecy. Cheney decided to ''put down a marker,'' and his task force was ''deliberately set up to be different'' from Clinton's''.
A concise and comprehensive read about the consequential vice presidency of Dick Cheney.
The book reminds me of Peter Baker's ''Days of Fire'' in its depth and quality. The author writes about Cheney in terms of issues that were relevant to him and the narrative is built around his tight circle of collaborators who helped him shape policies. It sheds a light on how the executive branch operates with the help of the Office of Legal Council. Surprisingly, Bush 43 is seldom discussed in the book. Only disappointment was the lack of background information about Cheney's life prior to 2000.
A concise and comprehensive read about the consequential vice presidency of Dick Cheney.
The book reminds me of Peter Baker's ''Days of Fire'' in its depth and quality. The author writes about Cheney in terms of issues that were relevant to him and the narrative is built around his tight circle of collaborators who helped him shape policies. It sheds a light on how the executive branch operates with the help of the Office of Legal Council. Surprisingly, Bush 43 is seldom discussed in the book. Only disappointment was the lack of background information about Cheney's life prior to 2000.
January 26, 2009
This book provides an interesting perspective on how to take over the entire policy process in Washington. It is not a flattering book, and the author clearly is not a Cheney fan, but an interesting portrait of the former VP comes out anyway. VP Cheney offered to be President Bush’s “detail guy”, handling things the President didn’t want on his plate. The first step (after leading a search for a vice presidential candidate and rejecting all comers) was to be put in charge of the transition, during the contested recount. Cheney realized that “personnel is policy”, and advocated people of his choosing in lower level positions in departments’ policy shops so he could control the flow of policy recommendations bubbling up from the bureaucracy. Once the right people were in place he could shape how policy was formed from the bottom up, and control how it was decided on at the top. (Those people also provided valuable back-channel information to him.) He had his aides declared advisors to the President, allowing them to sit in on policy discussions at levels below him. Cheney himself sat in on Principal Committee meetings, which had never routinely occurred before. The President chairs these when he attends, but usually the National Security Advisor chairs for him. This gave Cheney a voice in the meetings, and because he routinely briefed the President privately it allowed him to advocate his positions outside the normal policy flow – exactly contrary to the way Cheney operated when he was White House Chief of Staff to President Ford.
Cheney got office space on the House side because the House is where tax revenue (taxes) originates, so he could have a voice in tax policy. He sat in on numerous other meetings normally too low-level for a VP, then briefed the President and made recommendation. Cheney’s capacity for work was enormous, and his attention to detail phenomenal.
Chapter 4, Energy in the Executive, provides a case study in how to manage an errant boss (on the topic of climate change). This chapter highlights the Cheney didn’t really care about politics, he cared about just doing what he thought was right. Other chapters go into a lot of detail on different cases Cheney weighed in on. The war on terror, torture, the clean air act, other environmental issues, taxes, the war in Iraq.
A chapter that really addresses a different side of Cheney is Chapter 9, Demonstration Effect. I’m not sure the author wanted to show how deep Cheney was, how nuanced his world view, but it comes out anyway. The chapter looks at the beginning of the Iraq war, how Cheney pushed it and what he as trying to achieve. Cheney looked for pivot points and threshold questions. He took a long view, especially in international relations. “Can you modify regime behavior without regime change?” One person interviewed said he was able to process information faster than anybody else in the room. (Powell, Rice and Rumsfeld were in the room.) I doubt history will be kind to the former VP, but it is clear from this book that he was a brilliant man striving to do what he thought was best for the country. Unfortunately, it probably wasn’t.
Cheney got office space on the House side because the House is where tax revenue (taxes) originates, so he could have a voice in tax policy. He sat in on numerous other meetings normally too low-level for a VP, then briefed the President and made recommendation. Cheney’s capacity for work was enormous, and his attention to detail phenomenal.
Chapter 4, Energy in the Executive, provides a case study in how to manage an errant boss (on the topic of climate change). This chapter highlights the Cheney didn’t really care about politics, he cared about just doing what he thought was right. Other chapters go into a lot of detail on different cases Cheney weighed in on. The war on terror, torture, the clean air act, other environmental issues, taxes, the war in Iraq.
A chapter that really addresses a different side of Cheney is Chapter 9, Demonstration Effect. I’m not sure the author wanted to show how deep Cheney was, how nuanced his world view, but it comes out anyway. The chapter looks at the beginning of the Iraq war, how Cheney pushed it and what he as trying to achieve. Cheney looked for pivot points and threshold questions. He took a long view, especially in international relations. “Can you modify regime behavior without regime change?” One person interviewed said he was able to process information faster than anybody else in the room. (Powell, Rice and Rumsfeld were in the room.) I doubt history will be kind to the former VP, but it is clear from this book that he was a brilliant man striving to do what he thought was best for the country. Unfortunately, it probably wasn’t.
December 7, 2008
11/11: Hits the ground running with Cheney's terse, intrusive manipulation of the 2000 vice presidential vetting process, which turned out not to be necessary since Cheney chose himself as vp.
11/12: No surprise. Cheney gives his higher-up subordinates comparable positions in the president's staff, finesses himself into the Principals Committee and the Senate Republican Caucus, and makes himself a confidential adviser to the president on a level with the national security adviser. Most readers would probably be surprised to find out how unprecedented it was for a vice president to make himself essentially co-equal with the president, but the fact that Cheney is in this position is well known. Most revealing is Cheney began amassing this power during the disputed 2000 election.
11/14: Should I have known Jim Jeffords quit the GOP in large part because Cheney wouldn't budge on an education initiative? Should I be surprised that Cheney helped to shift the White House public position on global warming, essentially under the president's nose? Should I?
11/16: A bold assertion, to argue that Cheney fundamentally misread the Federalist Papers in his quest for an unaccountable, unitary executive. Guess I'll have to read those next? And was it wishful thinking for Gellman to note that Cheney wouldn't have made it to the underground bunker in time if American 77 had been aiming for the White House?
Skip a few days...
12/8: Other than a few back-handed digs that reveal something of the author's personal opinions, which would be rather difficult to conceal, this is a surprisingly even-handed account of a man who amassed as much power in the executive branch of the United States government as possible, with little regard for the political implications or the effects on civil liberties, because in his own estimation he felt he was doing the right thing. The author does not seem to think Cheney was deliberately trying to undermine the Constitution. He was trying to construct a political dynamic that would keep the country on a war footing for an indefinite time. The reader's own political leanings may well determine the rightness or wrongness of Cheney's goals.
11/12: No surprise. Cheney gives his higher-up subordinates comparable positions in the president's staff, finesses himself into the Principals Committee and the Senate Republican Caucus, and makes himself a confidential adviser to the president on a level with the national security adviser. Most readers would probably be surprised to find out how unprecedented it was for a vice president to make himself essentially co-equal with the president, but the fact that Cheney is in this position is well known. Most revealing is Cheney began amassing this power during the disputed 2000 election.
11/14: Should I have known Jim Jeffords quit the GOP in large part because Cheney wouldn't budge on an education initiative? Should I be surprised that Cheney helped to shift the White House public position on global warming, essentially under the president's nose? Should I?
11/16: A bold assertion, to argue that Cheney fundamentally misread the Federalist Papers in his quest for an unaccountable, unitary executive. Guess I'll have to read those next? And was it wishful thinking for Gellman to note that Cheney wouldn't have made it to the underground bunker in time if American 77 had been aiming for the White House?
Skip a few days...
12/8: Other than a few back-handed digs that reveal something of the author's personal opinions, which would be rather difficult to conceal, this is a surprisingly even-handed account of a man who amassed as much power in the executive branch of the United States government as possible, with little regard for the political implications or the effects on civil liberties, because in his own estimation he felt he was doing the right thing. The author does not seem to think Cheney was deliberately trying to undermine the Constitution. He was trying to construct a political dynamic that would keep the country on a war footing for an indefinite time. The reader's own political leanings may well determine the rightness or wrongness of Cheney's goals.
January 13, 2011
I recently downloaded this audiobook on a whim from LA County library online system (check it out, LA locals). All I knew was that it was an in depth look at Dick Cheney in his role as VP, and that the author, Barton Gellman, had shared the 2008 Pulitzer Prize for his writing on Cheney with the Washington Post.
Gellman succeeds in taking 8 years of data (along with a lot of before and after) and boiling it down into a page-turning account of the man who was the closest our nation has ever come to having a "deputy president." Throughout the book I found myself both more able to understand and sympathize(?) with Cheney, and also much more disturbed by him, as well as by the actions of the US government before and after 9/11. Gellman paints a picture of a man who was surprisingly lacking in personal ambition, but who manipulated the government, the public, and even the president, along with international ethics and law, in the service of his own deeply held (but highly questionable) beliefs about the US and the world. Want to know why we went to Iraq? Want to know how we ended up torturing people in Guantanamo? Want to know how the government flouted established law and began illegally monitoring your phone and email? Want to know why Bush campaigned on being a uniter but quickly became a divider once elected? Here's your book. Personally, not having read much post-game analysis of the Bush administration, I found the book most helpful in just re-thinking the events of that time period, absorbing the many details which only came out after the fact. (That's right, there actually were no WMDs in Iraq! Why did we ever think there were?) It also bears mentioning that Gellman offers his own analysis of these events and the people behind them: Cheney, Bush, Rice, Powell, Addington, and others. His work is not a bare statement of facts, but rather a careful and nuanced interpretation of the evidence. I'll leave it to savvier people to explain whether he gets it right or not. All I know is that I learned a lot and enjoyed myself in the process.
Gellman succeeds in taking 8 years of data (along with a lot of before and after) and boiling it down into a page-turning account of the man who was the closest our nation has ever come to having a "deputy president." Throughout the book I found myself both more able to understand and sympathize(?) with Cheney, and also much more disturbed by him, as well as by the actions of the US government before and after 9/11. Gellman paints a picture of a man who was surprisingly lacking in personal ambition, but who manipulated the government, the public, and even the president, along with international ethics and law, in the service of his own deeply held (but highly questionable) beliefs about the US and the world. Want to know why we went to Iraq? Want to know how we ended up torturing people in Guantanamo? Want to know how the government flouted established law and began illegally monitoring your phone and email? Want to know why Bush campaigned on being a uniter but quickly became a divider once elected? Here's your book. Personally, not having read much post-game analysis of the Bush administration, I found the book most helpful in just re-thinking the events of that time period, absorbing the many details which only came out after the fact. (That's right, there actually were no WMDs in Iraq! Why did we ever think there were?) It also bears mentioning that Gellman offers his own analysis of these events and the people behind them: Cheney, Bush, Rice, Powell, Addington, and others. His work is not a bare statement of facts, but rather a careful and nuanced interpretation of the evidence. I'll leave it to savvier people to explain whether he gets it right or not. All I know is that I learned a lot and enjoyed myself in the process.
February 23, 2009
Why do people hate Dick Cheney? I read this book for answers and, happily, I can say Gellman delivers. The book starts weakly by making some innuendos about Cheney regarding a 'leak' about a VP candidate, Gov. Keating; the offended governor seems to believe only Cheney could have caused his troubles even though he admits he told several people about the subject when he was being cleared for an earlier job. Nevertheless, after this small misstep Gellman does a reasonably good job of illustrating what it is that drives people nuts about Cheney: his secretive use of power, his manipulation of the president's decisions through limits on inforation and opinions, and, of course, his positions on certain emotional issues. The last point can cut different ways, of course, depending on how crazy you think his views are. So, for example, I don't like his opinions about natural resources versus ranchers' rights, but I understand that's because I'm an urbanite and he's a Westerner. On the other hand, his ominous invocation of the Dark Side and references to using any means necessary to get information to protect Americans - well, that's harder to love, of course. But Gellman's book really shines in two respects. First, he makes it clear that it's not just Cheney's love of war and torture that enrages people, but his ends-justfies-the-means use of power behind the scenes. Second, and in confirmation of the first point, the author manages to write the in-house struggle to make the treatment of terror suspects legal and decent with suspense and great narrative force. The real hero of the episode turns out to be John Ashcroft, who has not been given his props.
April 5, 2012
Angler, by the well-respected writer Barton Gellman, is an important book and a good read as well. Important, because it shows the multitude of ways that Dick Cheney manipulated the federal bureaucracy, which Cheney knew well, to form a wall around President George W. Bush. Bush was making decisions as president, certainly, but Cheney controlled the information delivered to the president and the people who had access to him. In that carefully controlled environment some of Bush's head-scratching decisions (compared to his earlier speeches and calls for a "compassionate conservatism") As disturbing as that is—a rolling Machiavellian overthrow by the vice president in a sense—Cheney's flouting of the U.S. Constitution is even more breathtaking. According to the book, there were many secret presidential orders described that were so classified that only a handful of people were even aware that they even existed and were locked away in safes in Cheney's office. All of the orders were for the purpose of reducing the civil rights of American citizens. Up to that point nearly all U.S. vice presidents had been non-entities as far as American history was concerned, so ineffective that it called into question whether the office of the vice presidency was even needed. Gellman's Angler shows the opposite extreme, a vice president all too effective and controlling whose term in office points out how shielded from oversight, and therefore terrifyingly dangerous a vice president can be. A must read for all political observers and people interested in contemporary American history.
December 1, 2008
Gellman's exhaustively sourced and gripping account of Cheney's transformation of OVP could not be any more fascinating. Getting beyond all the conspiracy theories and general nutjobbery that surrounds the man, the book tells a story of an almost Greek tragic hero -- a man so blinded by ideology and a lust for secrecy that he may have been at once the most effective and destructive holder of the office. Starting with Cheney's appointment to the ticket (recall, he ran Bush's VP search committee in 1999) and moving from his architected consolidation of white house power to a climactic, gripping account of near Watergate-level insurrection at DoJ, Gellman tells a tale all the more engrossing for its veracity.
I only have two real complaints. One, the book ends with about 75 pages left in the volume, which was disappointing (the remainder is dedicated to citations and sources) and two, it includes some assertions by implication that are frankly beneath the level of stellar journalism otherwise found in the Angler series. "Nobody could prove that Cheney did NOT drink iraqi blood out of thomas jefferson's skull..." kind of stuff -- though that may because few people were willing to go on record.
In general the volume is not overly negative on Cheney (all things considered...) though it is clearly colored by the fact that people willing to spill the beans to a journalist are by and large among the (numerous) people that were wronged or alienated by the man.
I only have two real complaints. One, the book ends with about 75 pages left in the volume, which was disappointing (the remainder is dedicated to citations and sources) and two, it includes some assertions by implication that are frankly beneath the level of stellar journalism otherwise found in the Angler series. "Nobody could prove that Cheney did NOT drink iraqi blood out of thomas jefferson's skull..." kind of stuff -- though that may because few people were willing to go on record.
In general the volume is not overly negative on Cheney (all things considered...) though it is clearly colored by the fact that people willing to spill the beans to a journalist are by and large among the (numerous) people that were wronged or alienated by the man.
March 25, 2009
The Bush administration has been the most damaging one of my life -- and I can remember Eisenhower. The former President still has his apologists who claim he is intelligent, well informed, and engaged. There is no evidence for this whatsoever. The man exhibited no acquaintance with anything other than the cultural prejudices with which he grew up and no awareness of the existence of a host of alternative prejudices. The lack of intelligence or deliberation is evident in the fact that he demonstrated no uncertainty that there might be alternatives to any of his notions.
Cheney saw this early on -- at least as early as the time during which he was Bush's "vice presidential search committee". Cheney realized, I am quite sure, that were he to be the Vice President, he could control Bush and manipulate him, achieving in the VP role virtually every thing he might otherwise only be able to achieve as President. The book Angler confirms this.
The Republican Party, in control of the other branches of government for most of Bush's term, abdicated its constitutional responsibility as a co-equal branch of government, bending to the political machinations of the administration, even when they were clearly violating or ignoring the Constitution themselves (e.g., abrogating treaties, issuing signing statements, etc., etc). Mickey Edwards, a former Republican congressman from Oklahoma, has written a book is an indictment of the GOP in this regard.
Cheney saw this early on -- at least as early as the time during which he was Bush's "vice presidential search committee". Cheney realized, I am quite sure, that were he to be the Vice President, he could control Bush and manipulate him, achieving in the VP role virtually every thing he might otherwise only be able to achieve as President. The book Angler confirms this.
The Republican Party, in control of the other branches of government for most of Bush's term, abdicated its constitutional responsibility as a co-equal branch of government, bending to the political machinations of the administration, even when they were clearly violating or ignoring the Constitution themselves (e.g., abrogating treaties, issuing signing statements, etc., etc). Mickey Edwards, a former Republican congressman from Oklahoma, has written a book is an indictment of the GOP in this regard.
July 16, 2009
Finished this book a few days ago, and I give it a strong recommendation. Gellman is meticulous to describe Cheney's modus operandi through its strengths and limitations, successes and failures. Gellman's assessment of the Cheney vice-presidency takes care to demonstrate what Cheney was and what Cheney wasn't. He pulls no punches in recounting the events leading up to the Bush administration's condoning of both torture and domestic surveillance. What was interesting to me was Gellman's treatment of Bush himself. Bush's managerial style acted as an enabler to Cheney's (and by extension, a very looming David Addington's) successes, executive power grabs, and complete and near-complete governing disasters, yet Bush figures almost not at all within the central narratives of the account. Not until the end does Gellman truly examine and make any comment on the unusual relationship.
Excerpt: "The critics missed something important. The formula was not empty. It was a syllogism, informed by the same old claim of unlimited power. 'Torture' was defined as 'what we do not condone,' as Bush put it. Whatever Bush did permit, Al Gonzales said, 'does not constitute torture.' Quod erat demonstrandum.
Excerpt: "The critics missed something important. The formula was not empty. It was a syllogism, informed by the same old claim of unlimited power. 'Torture' was defined as 'what we do not condone,' as Bush put it. Whatever Bush did permit, Al Gonzales said, 'does not constitute torture.' Quod erat demonstrandum.
May 11, 2012
I checked out this book with a lot of interest. I will never see eye-to-eye with Dick Cheney on a majority of issues but I found his quest for power very fascinating. Gellman does a pretty solid job (though at times mildly repetitive) in summing up top-secret meetings & events which includes my personal favorite; Alberto Gonzales & James Comey rushing to the bed side of AG John Ashcroft.
Without spoiling too much of the book, you get a pretty good understanding of how Dick Cheney operated as VP and how aides such as David Addington (who might as well be the other figure in the book) gave him the power he needed. George W. Bush is for the most part, an afterthought and referred to like he is off-screen. There are a few times you have to remind yourself that Cheney wasn't the President and Addington wasn't his VP.
I learned a lot from this book and I recommend it to any history or political buff. Angler may not be the most exciting read, far from it, but I found it to be intriguing. I rented it from my college library but there's enough information in it for me to buy it cheap and read it now and then.
Without spoiling too much of the book, you get a pretty good understanding of how Dick Cheney operated as VP and how aides such as David Addington (who might as well be the other figure in the book) gave him the power he needed. George W. Bush is for the most part, an afterthought and referred to like he is off-screen. There are a few times you have to remind yourself that Cheney wasn't the President and Addington wasn't his VP.
I learned a lot from this book and I recommend it to any history or political buff. Angler may not be the most exciting read, far from it, but I found it to be intriguing. I rented it from my college library but there's enough information in it for me to buy it cheap and read it now and then.
December 30, 2008
The best political book I've read about the Bush administration. A remarkably even-handed and detailed profile of Cheney's years in the White House. It destroys a lot of the more ludicrous ideas of Cheney's motives while revealing things that are so calculated and unyielding that its shocking. On one hand, Cheney's secrecy goes as far as to even hide things that would dispel myths about him, like his forfeiting millions in Haliburton stock options. On the other hand, he and his chief lawyer David Addington and John Yoo went to bizarre lengths to circumvent America's adherence to the Geneva conventions. He also would deftly manipulate both sides of arguments before they were ever brought to Bush. And yet, Cheney more than anything wanted to protect America from another attack like 9/11, yet in doing so, caused untold damage to our credibility and ability to influence events around the world.
Great journalism, and some chilling stories. And who'd have thought John Ashcroft would turn out to be a hero?
Great journalism, and some chilling stories. And who'd have thought John Ashcroft would turn out to be a hero?
December 2, 2009
Fantastically interesting piece of non-fiction tied together by a narrative worthy of an Aaron Sorkin drama. Specifically, the West Wing. Alright, I've never seen the West Wing, but if it is at all like this book, I am going to go out and purchase the DVDs.
In an era when Cheney bashing is as trendy as skinny jeans, this book is a breath of fresh air. Not because it is written from a pro-Cheney angle, but because it appears to be a sparkling piece of journalistic objectivity.
A ruthlessly effective man of conviction and single-minded determination, stories of Cheney fill this 400 page volume, however there is also significant insight into how our government works at the highest levels.
Whether you are a Cheney-lover, or a Cheney-hater, I cannot recommend this book enough.
P.S. One of my favorite parts might have been in the epilogue where the author mentions that Cheney sent him a signed picture of Cheney reading this book. Cheney had some complaints, but he still recommends this book to people saying "the author did his homework." Fantastic.
In an era when Cheney bashing is as trendy as skinny jeans, this book is a breath of fresh air. Not because it is written from a pro-Cheney angle, but because it appears to be a sparkling piece of journalistic objectivity.
A ruthlessly effective man of conviction and single-minded determination, stories of Cheney fill this 400 page volume, however there is also significant insight into how our government works at the highest levels.
Whether you are a Cheney-lover, or a Cheney-hater, I cannot recommend this book enough.
P.S. One of my favorite parts might have been in the epilogue where the author mentions that Cheney sent him a signed picture of Cheney reading this book. Cheney had some complaints, but he still recommends this book to people saying "the author did his homework." Fantastic.
December 5, 2008
I never thought spending a week inside the mind of Dick Cheney would be an enjoyable experince but this book is really good!!
Love him or loathe him you have to admire his mad political skilz. He basically is the President without being the President and with Bush's blessing. OK so maybe that last part isn't so hard to believe but the way he plays his game on the world's chessboard is masterful.
Oh and in an interview he said he really likes the nickname "Darth Cheney" because it humanizes him. So much so he dresses his dog as Lord Sith.
Love him or loathe him you have to admire his mad political skilz. He basically is the President without being the President and with Bush's blessing. OK so maybe that last part isn't so hard to believe but the way he plays his game on the world's chessboard is masterful.
Oh and in an interview he said he really likes the nickname "Darth Cheney" because it humanizes him. So much so he dresses his dog as Lord Sith.
April 16, 2016
I wrote a long review on Shelfari that did not transfer here. Briefly, I believe Cheney is immoral, evil, and likely criminal. The book is character revealing.
September 16, 2009
The man is truly the Prince of Darkness.
November 28, 2018
An interesting and well-reported account of Cheney's role in the Bush White House. The focus here was on 2 things. First, Gellman shows how under a weak and largely disinterested president, Cheney came to dominate the decision making and bureaucratic processes. Cheney concentrated more meetings, paper flows, briefings, etc. in his own office, and he spread a large staff, especially his legal team, into many different teams and agencies. He and Rumsfeld utterly (and in a clearly sexist manner) stripped Condi Rice of her role as coordinator of foreign policy decision making largely by simply not showing up to meetings or responding to her initiatives. It is clear that they did not respect her, and Bush did little to bolster her until the second term. Gellman skillfully shows how on issues from tax reform to Iraq intelligence to interrogation techniques, Cheney did end runs around the Cabinet members who should have been on point. The central image of the Bush presidency, according to this book, should be a meeting being held, everyone leaving the room except Bush and Cheney, and then Cheney subtly shaping Bush's interpretation of things. One thing that impressed me in this book was Cheney's hunger for and deep understanding of a variety of policy details. This, plus the control of the bureaucracy, made him the most powerful VP of US history.
The second major focus of the book is Cheney's role in the Bush gov't post-911 interrogation and detention policies. Cheney's office (Rumsfeld helped) was the prime driver of almost all of Bush's most controversial policies, including "enhanced interrogation," indefinite and secret detention, military commissions, and warrantless domestic surveillance. His lawyers, esp David Addington, promulgated an almost unlimited theory of executive power during wartime that allowed Bush to abrogate domestic and international law. In a way, this book is actually a testament to the strength of American institutions and checks/balances because these policies generally didn't survive much once they received resistance from Congress, the courts, and the DoJ in his second term. Still, in all of these cases Cheney did not give an inch. Even when the Supreme Court ruled against military commissions, Cheney still wanted to ask Congress to pass a law reversing that decision, which of course would have been unconstitutional anyways.
There was a certain quiet but relentless mania to Cheney that is truly frightening. I think even Bush became a little scared of him by the end. Granted, this is not a flattering account, but I could not find one instance in which he compromised with anyone. Beneath the image of the quiet, practical "fixer" VP appears to be a zealot whose true passion appears to be unlimited executive power. Is this because he sees himself as the hero, as he is thinly portrayed in his wife's weird novel "Executive Privilege?" Is it because he is an obsessive controller of people and processes? It is hard to tell, and historians will have a lot of work to do to figure out this man's deeper relevance.
As I near the end of my dissertation on the Iraq War, I often feel like I'm reading the same book over and over again. That wasn't really the case here, as Gellman had some exceptional access. Some material was familiar, but even if you already know a lot about the Bush admin, this is still worth your time. There's also some great stuff on domestic politics. Let's not forget that Mr. Responsible Cheney led the charge on two massive tax cuts just as he pushed for a war that is now well into the trillions in costs. You know: fiscal conservatism. In truth, Cheney was a disastrous Vice President, which Gellman shows without saying it.
The second major focus of the book is Cheney's role in the Bush gov't post-911 interrogation and detention policies. Cheney's office (Rumsfeld helped) was the prime driver of almost all of Bush's most controversial policies, including "enhanced interrogation," indefinite and secret detention, military commissions, and warrantless domestic surveillance. His lawyers, esp David Addington, promulgated an almost unlimited theory of executive power during wartime that allowed Bush to abrogate domestic and international law. In a way, this book is actually a testament to the strength of American institutions and checks/balances because these policies generally didn't survive much once they received resistance from Congress, the courts, and the DoJ in his second term. Still, in all of these cases Cheney did not give an inch. Even when the Supreme Court ruled against military commissions, Cheney still wanted to ask Congress to pass a law reversing that decision, which of course would have been unconstitutional anyways.
There was a certain quiet but relentless mania to Cheney that is truly frightening. I think even Bush became a little scared of him by the end. Granted, this is not a flattering account, but I could not find one instance in which he compromised with anyone. Beneath the image of the quiet, practical "fixer" VP appears to be a zealot whose true passion appears to be unlimited executive power. Is this because he sees himself as the hero, as he is thinly portrayed in his wife's weird novel "Executive Privilege?" Is it because he is an obsessive controller of people and processes? It is hard to tell, and historians will have a lot of work to do to figure out this man's deeper relevance.
As I near the end of my dissertation on the Iraq War, I often feel like I'm reading the same book over and over again. That wasn't really the case here, as Gellman had some exceptional access. Some material was familiar, but even if you already know a lot about the Bush admin, this is still worth your time. There's also some great stuff on domestic politics. Let's not forget that Mr. Responsible Cheney led the charge on two massive tax cuts just as he pushed for a war that is now well into the trillions in costs. You know: fiscal conservatism. In truth, Cheney was a disastrous Vice President, which Gellman shows without saying it.
February 5, 2009
If you've paid close attention to the newspapers and wire services in the last eight years, you really don't need to read Angler The Cheney Vice Presidency. You knew what was happening all along. But it may be worth it to read through as a summation, a reminder of the kind of rampant malfeasance in office that the national citizenry allowed, and by their silence, approved.
What's interesting, for those who don't need to read it, may just be the most minute facets of machiavellian process, as perfected by Cheney and Select Associates once in power. This little detail, for example, in the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib attrocities :
As allies and public sentiment in Arab and Muslim countries turned savage, John Bellinger composed a memo for George Bush. Bellinger told Condi Rice, his immediate superior, that the president had to demonstrate his outrage at a moment of national disgrace. He wrote a formal transmission memo, with a cover note to Rice and a draft directive from Bush to Rumsfeld. The president would tell the defense secretary that he was deeply troubled by this taint upon the nation , directing him to report back in thirty days with an explanation and a plan of action.
And then Bellinger found out something that, in three years as a top adviser to Rice, he had never known. Every time he wrote a memo to his boss, a blind copy was routed to the vice president's office. Scooter Libby, according to one official, made the arrangement with Steve Hadley, Rice's deputy. It was not advertised, and neither was it reciprocated; what happened in Cheney's office stayed in Cheney's office.
Just another little aspect of a White House job, and a lesson--- watch your back, your front, your thoughts, because you are being watched.
This book is well researched, strains at every difficult juncture to be fair-minded, and is scrupulously footnoted. It does suffer slightly from being composed in the age of google, and dissimilar 'search result' snippets end up all over an otherwise tight narrative line.
What I thought most impressive here was the generally strict insistence on staying away from the sensational & mythic aspects of the Cheney era. Americans now don't need fantastic exaggerations about the darth vader of bush junior's negligent terms in office. They need straight examples, clear reporting, and accurate timelines. Material to add to the broad evidence that constitutional abuse took place, and to underline the fact that a prosecution would serve justice now and for generations to come.
What's interesting, for those who don't need to read it, may just be the most minute facets of machiavellian process, as perfected by Cheney and Select Associates once in power. This little detail, for example, in the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib attrocities :
As allies and public sentiment in Arab and Muslim countries turned savage, John Bellinger composed a memo for George Bush. Bellinger told Condi Rice, his immediate superior, that the president had to demonstrate his outrage at a moment of national disgrace. He wrote a formal transmission memo, with a cover note to Rice and a draft directive from Bush to Rumsfeld. The president would tell the defense secretary that he was deeply troubled by this taint upon the nation , directing him to report back in thirty days with an explanation and a plan of action.
And then Bellinger found out something that, in three years as a top adviser to Rice, he had never known. Every time he wrote a memo to his boss, a blind copy was routed to the vice president's office. Scooter Libby, according to one official, made the arrangement with Steve Hadley, Rice's deputy. It was not advertised, and neither was it reciprocated; what happened in Cheney's office stayed in Cheney's office.
Just another little aspect of a White House job, and a lesson--- watch your back, your front, your thoughts, because you are being watched.
This book is well researched, strains at every difficult juncture to be fair-minded, and is scrupulously footnoted. It does suffer slightly from being composed in the age of google, and dissimilar 'search result' snippets end up all over an otherwise tight narrative line.
What I thought most impressive here was the generally strict insistence on staying away from the sensational & mythic aspects of the Cheney era. Americans now don't need fantastic exaggerations about the darth vader of bush junior's negligent terms in office. They need straight examples, clear reporting, and accurate timelines. Material to add to the broad evidence that constitutional abuse took place, and to underline the fact that a prosecution would serve justice now and for generations to come.
November 14, 2023
With any biography, or non-fiction book, there is a tendency to judge the subject rather than the book. Angler is a superbly written book. The text is engaging and interesting and Gellman makes a concerted effort to paint a complete portrait of our nation's most reviled, but also most effective, Vice President. As Gellman explains, Cheney's deft use of power allowed him and his staff to subvert Presidential appointees who outranked his own staffers. By doing this, he was able to sideline most of President Bush's appointees and effectively influence the President's decision-making by controlling the flow of information. Vice President Cheney primarily sought to influence President Bush's policies surrounding the War on Terror and the invasion of and subsequent war in Iraq. Cheney, a veteran of the Ford and Bush (Sr.) Administrations, a protege of Donald Rumsfeld, and a general creature of the conservative establishment possessed a unique view on Presidential power. Cheney used this vision of an imperial presidency to take aggressive action, carte blanche, against Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the regime of Saddam Hussein. Cheney's hostility against Iraq was well known. Even dating back to the first Gulf War, when he was serving as Secretary of Defense, Cheney (and Rumsfeld) sought to overthrow Saddam. Saddam was indeed a brutal authoritarian, however, his connection to 9/11 was nonexistent. Even on 9/11, Cheney and Rumsfeld mused if the attacks were "enough to hit Saddam" regardless of evidence that pointed towards Al-Qaeda. The most interesting part of the book was the section that focused on Cheney in the White House bunker on 9/11. There, with the President unreachable, he [technically] subverted Presidential authority to order fighter jets to shoot down United 93, thought to be heading to the Capitol or White House. It begs the question; in that moment, would we want someone who questioned themselves during a national emergency or would we choose an individual who took swift action in a moment of desperate crisis? Additionally, with all of the negative elements of Cheney's tenure, how complicit were the American people in his actions, and to what extent did we tolerate, or even demand some of the things he was responsible for?
July 16, 2016
The book is fairly well referenced. Gellman avoids using complicated ways of saying things with fancy words. This makes it easy to read.
Let me review this book by answering two questions (asked by a reader friend Katie Semenick).
1. What do you as a reader get, from reading "Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency"? - Reading the book confirmed my idea about how things are/were run in the US government and what was Cheney’s pivotal role in the events leading to the response to 9/11 and beyond.
2. What is Dick Cheney's most admirable quality, and if I noticed his flaws as a person in the book as well? - His most admirable quality – now that’s a tough one. Actually, I noticed three of them: First – he reads a lot and listens carefully to briefings by subject experts, clearly focusing on the topics. In this book, as elsewhere, this ability is contrasted with his erstwhile boss’s abject lack of such qualities. Second – he has a healthy mistrust of excessive legislation and understands the complicated webs of interests behind these. The flip side of this good quality is his remarkable skill at converting background webs of interests to solely serve elite stakeholder vested interests in total disregard to public good. This turns out to be his colossal lack of morality and failure to understand accountability to voters and the people or the constitution. Third – he thinks that running the economy should never be trusted to politicians – now, isn’t that something from a hard-core politician.
In spite of bringing out these good sides of Cheney, the book focuses on showing how his ‘bad’ sides makes him one of the main characters responsible for subverting decency and morality underlying the noble principles that America stands for and was built upon. He is painted as one of the main architects responsible for taking USA down the slippery slope to perdition post 9/11. This is hardly the book he would sign and gift to his admirers and family. Gellman succeeds in showing him as an extremely manipulative and power-hungry yet tragic figure without going into Michael Moore like one-sided simplifications or simply portraying him as Nazi Goebbels.
Let me review this book by answering two questions (asked by a reader friend Katie Semenick).
1. What do you as a reader get, from reading "Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency"? - Reading the book confirmed my idea about how things are/were run in the US government and what was Cheney’s pivotal role in the events leading to the response to 9/11 and beyond.
2. What is Dick Cheney's most admirable quality, and if I noticed his flaws as a person in the book as well? - His most admirable quality – now that’s a tough one. Actually, I noticed three of them: First – he reads a lot and listens carefully to briefings by subject experts, clearly focusing on the topics. In this book, as elsewhere, this ability is contrasted with his erstwhile boss’s abject lack of such qualities. Second – he has a healthy mistrust of excessive legislation and understands the complicated webs of interests behind these. The flip side of this good quality is his remarkable skill at converting background webs of interests to solely serve elite stakeholder vested interests in total disregard to public good. This turns out to be his colossal lack of morality and failure to understand accountability to voters and the people or the constitution. Third – he thinks that running the economy should never be trusted to politicians – now, isn’t that something from a hard-core politician.
In spite of bringing out these good sides of Cheney, the book focuses on showing how his ‘bad’ sides makes him one of the main characters responsible for subverting decency and morality underlying the noble principles that America stands for and was built upon. He is painted as one of the main architects responsible for taking USA down the slippery slope to perdition post 9/11. This is hardly the book he would sign and gift to his admirers and family. Gellman succeeds in showing him as an extremely manipulative and power-hungry yet tragic figure without going into Michael Moore like one-sided simplifications or simply portraying him as Nazi Goebbels.
August 19, 2014
I loved that this book isn't really a biography, but rather a mostly chronological depiction of Cheney's time in the White House. It's also classically objective, unbiased journalism--Gellman even refrains from using 'I' the few times it's necessary, calling himself "the author." I even came out of it with a little more respect for Cheney than I had before, since Gellman gives no credence to the accusations of financial impropriety that linger over Cheney and his Halliburton connections. And Cheney's a brutally efficient manager, using simple strategies to have his staff dominate over Bush's. There's some comedy in how easily he defeats Rice and Powell, who often found themselves on the opposite side of arguments. (There's even a scene where Rice breaks down in tears during a meeting she can't get Cheney-ally Rumsfeld to attend.)
The book's chapters are broken down thematically: there's a chapter, for instance, on Cheney's role shaping financial policy (he advocated for even more tax cuts than Bush thought wise, and eventually got them), the environment (anything impeding natural resource extraction was bad, according to the former oil-man), and, of course, the War on Terror. I wish there was perhaps another chapter on the War in Iraq and more perspective on Cheney's role in it, but Gellman does a good job covering all the ways Cheney impacted the country.
The scariest part, for me, was the way Cheney manipulated the law. His theory of unitary executive power was so extreme that it meant, essentially, that the President had the power not to obey any law he so chose. (Execute is the proper legal term, of course, but Cheney and his legal team of Dave Addington and John Yoo stretched it beyond my imagination.) Meanwhile, our legal system is so slow/inept that the only thing that eventually challenged Cheney was the threat of resignation from Bush Administration appointees, or the people most likely to agree with him.
The book's chapters are broken down thematically: there's a chapter, for instance, on Cheney's role shaping financial policy (he advocated for even more tax cuts than Bush thought wise, and eventually got them), the environment (anything impeding natural resource extraction was bad, according to the former oil-man), and, of course, the War on Terror. I wish there was perhaps another chapter on the War in Iraq and more perspective on Cheney's role in it, but Gellman does a good job covering all the ways Cheney impacted the country.
The scariest part, for me, was the way Cheney manipulated the law. His theory of unitary executive power was so extreme that it meant, essentially, that the President had the power not to obey any law he so chose. (Execute is the proper legal term, of course, but Cheney and his legal team of Dave Addington and John Yoo stretched it beyond my imagination.) Meanwhile, our legal system is so slow/inept that the only thing that eventually challenged Cheney was the threat of resignation from Bush Administration appointees, or the people most likely to agree with him.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 187 reviews