What do you think?
Rate this book
Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush
In this ambitious work of political narrative, Robert Draper takes us inside the Bush White House and delivers an intimate portrait of a tumultuous decade and a beleaguered administration. Virtually every page of this book crackles with scenes, anecdotes, and dialogue that will surprise even long- time observers of George W. Bush. With unprecedented access to all the key figures of this administration -- from six one-on-one sessions with the president, to Laura Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, Karl Rove, and perhaps 200 other players, some well-known, some not -- Draper has achieved what no other journalist or contemporary historian has done thus he has told the story of the Bush White House from the inside, with a special emphasis on how the very personality of this strong-willed president has affected the outcome of events. Bush loyalists and the growing number of Bush detractors will all find much to savor in this riveting political page-turner. We begin with a revealing lunch at the White House where a testy, hot dog-chomping president finally unburdens himself to the inquisitive reporter, a fellow Texan who well understands the manly argot that courses through this administration. We revisit the primaries of election-year 2000, in which the character of the candidate and indeed the future of the Republican Party were forged in the scalding South Carolina battle with Senator John McCain. We proceed forward to witness intimately the confusion and the eloquence that followed the September 11 attacks, then the feckless attempts to provide electricity to a darkened Baghdad, the high- and lowlights of the 2004 re-election bid, the startling and fruitless attempt to "spend capital" by overhauling the Social Security system, the inept response to Katrina, the downward spiraling and increasingly divisive war in Iraq. Though the headlines may be familiar, the details, the utterly inside account of how events transpired will come as fresh reportage to even the most devoted followers of mainstream media coverage. In this most press- wary of administrations, Robert Draper has accomplished a small He has knocked on all on the right doors, and thus become the first author to tell a personality-driven history of the Bush years. In so doing, he allows us to witness in complete granularity the personal force of a president determined to achieve big things, who remained an optimist in the face of a sometimes harsh unpopularity, who confronted the history of his time with what can surely be described as dead certainty.
482 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 4, 2007
34 people are currently reading
498 people want to read
About the author
Robert Draper
38 books80 followersRobert Draper is a freelance writer, a correspondent for GQ and a contributor to The New York Times Magazine. Previously, he worked for Texas Monthly, where he first became acquainted with the Bush political family.
Robert Draper attended Westchester High School in Houston, Texas. He is the grandson of Leon Jaworski, prosecutor during the Watergate scandal, segregation trials, and Nazi war crimes, which is said to have influenced Draper's writing about the use and abuse of power. Draper was active in high school debate. He attended the University of Texas at Austin, writing for the university newspaper The Daily Texan.
Robert Draper attended Westchester High School in Houston, Texas. He is the grandson of Leon Jaworski, prosecutor during the Watergate scandal, segregation trials, and Nazi war crimes, which is said to have influenced Draper's writing about the use and abuse of power. Draper was active in high school debate. He attended the University of Texas at Austin, writing for the university newspaper The Daily Texan.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 68 reviews
October 24, 2007
Amazing. It's hard to find a political biography that tries to be unbiased. Sometimes George W. Bush is a hero. Sometimes, his weaknesses are glaring. But seeing the world through his eyes is truly eye-opening, especially 9-11. One thing is certain, you won't look at our current president in the same way.
April 15, 2008
A lot more anecdote than analysis. Perhaps that's always the hazard in trying to write about a presidency that's not even over yet. He shows us a lot of leaves, and some of them are even interesting, but there's just no forest there. Despite the title, there's really no unifying theme to this book.
April 11, 2017
I should know by now that if a book is in the discount/used book section of Barnes and Noble, there might be worth taking a good look at it to determine why this might be so. This is a decent book about the Bush presidency, but I should have looked at the publication date (2007), as I would have clearly seen that the book was not a retrospective on this administration, but a third quarter update. The book leaves the reader dangling after the midterm elections of 2006, and thus it does not expose the reader to things like the results of "the surge" in Iraq, Bush's response to the 2008 economic meltdown, and his last days in office (and who can forget Bush having to duck from the shoes thrown at him on his final visit to Iraq?). How can one reach conclusions about a presidency when one writes the book with two years still left in the term in office? There are some parts of the book that provide pretty good insight concerning some of the events that Bush had to address, most notably his response to the September 11, 2001 attacks and the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina. But there are other notable events that really get short shrift. The author spends more time discussing the 2000 New Hampshire primary than the Florida recount. Bush's bike rides get a lot of attention, but his failure in the 2003 lead up to the invasion of Iraq to match the coalition that his father created 1991 is barely mentioned. In the end, I cannot say that I emerged with a real understanding of what makes George W. "tick." It is probably still too early to write a definitive study on the 43rd president, but there might be some other studies already published that provide a more complete treatment of this still controversial presidency.
July 31, 2011
Perhaps because I was already beginning to view this president as pathetic, this book fostered feelings of sympathy and understanding of which I wouldn't have previously believed I was capable. Though the author touches on some of the embarrassing moments of W's tenure, there were obvious controversial aspects that were glossed over. An internal debate followed the reading of this book: Maybe he wasn't such a bad guy, but what about this and that and…? I guess I'll refrain in the future from dismissing him as "The Idiot", but I'll definitely not forgive him and the other Republicans for the nasty, distortion politics they've perfected in the past eight years. And we've yet to see how many years it will take to get out of the messes his kind have created.
March 5, 2008
Another library book, requested this after seeing the author on the Daily Show and Charlie Rose.
I suppose this book humanizes the president to some extent, but not in any particularly flattering way. He has two equally unappetizing modes: petulant and arrogant.
I suppose this book humanizes the president to some extent, but not in any particularly flattering way. He has two equally unappetizing modes: petulant and arrogant.
August 26, 2008
as unlaughable as the past eight years have been, i actually snickered through many parts of this book. i also came away with a much more nuanced understanding of our dear president. i'm sure he would dislike that.
February 1, 2019
Well written, but seemed a bit biased in favor of W. Don't get me wrong, I liked President Bush, but I felt like certain embarrassing events were overlooked and misfires were glazed over more often than not. It was also revealing just how much of the public events were staged; this is probably true for all presidents, but it was a bit eye-opening to me.
Main points in the book were: the 2000 election, 9/11, the war in Iraq (Afghanistan is barely touched), the 2004 election (why did I not remember that Bush did not clinch victory until around 5 am the day after election?), Katrina, and a short amount on Cindy Sheehan (and...as family of an OIF KIA, I assure you, Ms. Sheehan, you DO NOT speak for all of us and yes, there are many of us who still think we did the right thing). This book seemed to be more of a summary than anything, but most folks will find it an easy read.
To note--I do have a separate book that I know the author has a very hard bias against GWB that I will read later, my goal is to find neutral sources, but understand that from about Nixon on, this will be nearly impossible.
Main points in the book were: the 2000 election, 9/11, the war in Iraq (Afghanistan is barely touched), the 2004 election (why did I not remember that Bush did not clinch victory until around 5 am the day after election?), Katrina, and a short amount on Cindy Sheehan (and...as family of an OIF KIA, I assure you, Ms. Sheehan, you DO NOT speak for all of us and yes, there are many of us who still think we did the right thing). This book seemed to be more of a summary than anything, but most folks will find it an easy read.
To note--I do have a separate book that I know the author has a very hard bias against GWB that I will read later, my goal is to find neutral sources, but understand that from about Nixon on, this will be nearly impossible.
July 19, 2021
I don't really read many biographies, but I thought I would like to read something about President Bush, given that he was in situ when 9/11 happened, and he then launched the subsequent 'war on terror', which is still going on today. I guess I was also interested because, while at the time he seemed to be a shambolic president, in later years I know he's been held in high regard by the Obamas, and obviously by contrast with Donald Trump any semi-coherent president would (should) look good.
This book seemed to be the recommended bio online, so I borrowed it from the library. I guess this review is about the book, rather than Bush's presidency. I know nothing of the author, but I thought at times he may have given Bush an easy ride. Having said that, as a chronicle of the 8 years (and before) of Bush's presidency it does not drag, it's well paced, and you do (I think) learn quite a lot about Bush himself. So a good read in itself, whatever you might think of the ex-President's achievements or otherwise.
Last thought - one thing I did find weird was that Bush was dealing with Putin in the early 2000s. Three US presidents later, Putin is still in power. An interesting contrast.
This book seemed to be the recommended bio online, so I borrowed it from the library. I guess this review is about the book, rather than Bush's presidency. I know nothing of the author, but I thought at times he may have given Bush an easy ride. Having said that, as a chronicle of the 8 years (and before) of Bush's presidency it does not drag, it's well paced, and you do (I think) learn quite a lot about Bush himself. So a good read in itself, whatever you might think of the ex-President's achievements or otherwise.
Last thought - one thing I did find weird was that Bush was dealing with Putin in the early 2000s. Three US presidents later, Putin is still in power. An interesting contrast.
September 22, 2021
Disappointing, just like the Bush the younger (or older for that matter) Presidency. His initial response to 9/11 attacks was inspiring, but when he extended the war to Iraq I thought 'Oh Shit') ! Why don't these Washington arseholes not see the future ramifications of their actions. Saddam and his Sunni rabble were the perfect counter-balance to rabid Anti-American Shia Iranians. Three wars that ended in stalemates are evidence to that. With Iraq in shambles Iran and it's nuclear dreams are the bully-boys of the Mid East.
Back to the book: I voted for 'W' in 2000 because Clinton couldn't run for a third term and Gore is a scion of racists and an environmental hypocrite . By 2004 I sat out because there was no good choice.
This book shows 'W' as a shallow, immature and vindictive jerk, and confirms my opinion that he invaded Iraq to punish Saddam for threatening his father. Before I forget, Jeb is dork that should have gone into a trade of some sort. The only reason I gave this 2 stars is because I don't give 1-star ratings any more, and it allowed me to go into an incomprehensible rant. There!
Back to the book: I voted for 'W' in 2000 because Clinton couldn't run for a third term and Gore is a scion of racists and an environmental hypocrite . By 2004 I sat out because there was no good choice.
This book shows 'W' as a shallow, immature and vindictive jerk, and confirms my opinion that he invaded Iraq to punish Saddam for threatening his father. Before I forget, Jeb is dork that should have gone into a trade of some sort. The only reason I gave this 2 stars is because I don't give 1-star ratings any more, and it allowed me to go into an incomprehensible rant. There!
March 23, 2010
This book was published in 2007. It seemed odd to me that the author would publish the book now rather than waiting until 2009 in order to review the entire Bush presidency.
The author spent months preparing this book, which included interviews with George W. Bush. In passing, Bush had mentioned to Mr. Draper (December 2006) that he was working on finishing reading his 87th book that year. I find that a little hard to believe. First, I wasn’t aware that Bush could read let alone read eighty some books a year. That would be more than one a week. Either he is lying or he doesn’t do much about being president and so has the time to read this many books or both. I am retired and I haven’t read that many books this year.
Later in the book, it is obvious Bush doesn’t read any news magazine even if a story is related to an issue he is working. He reads books, but not news magazines. Strange?
Republican publisher Steve Forbes is to have said of George W. Bush: Bush is a nice guy but an empty suite with no philosophical underpinnings.
Rove
Karl Rove and Karen Hughes can’t stand each other.
There is a story about Rove as a teenager in 1960. He boasted to a girl that he was a strong supporter for Richard Nixon. The girl came from a Catholic family and was supporting Kennedy. When he told her that he was supporting Nixon, she knocked him to the sidewalk and smashed his nose.
Camp David
The road to Camp David is so far up in the mountains that one day Bush tried to use his cell phone to make a call and realized he couldn’t get reception. You would think that things like that would have been fixed years ago. It is fixed now.
Iraq and 911
Bush can be very funny at times. Such as the “mission accomplished” event regarding the “end of the Iraq War”. Or when he said, “I just don’t think it’s the role of the US government tell people what to do. We do it this way, so should you”.
Cheney can be funny too. “If you wait for intelligence to drive policy, you will have waited too long.”
Dick Armey tried to tell the Bush administration before the attack on Iraq this could turn into a quagmire. Cheney’s response was: “We have great information. They’re going to welcome us. It will be like the American army going through the streets of Paris. They’re sitting there ready to form a new government. The people will be so happy with their freedoms we’ll probably back ourselves out of there within a month or two”. Armey didn’t buy it. Colin Powell also raised some concerns whether this was the correct path to take.
In Jan 2006, Bush had a meeting with 13 former Secretaries of State and Defense to get “their assessment of Iraq”. Photographers came in to take pictures of Bush “consulting with these former cabinet officers”. Bush introduced the ambassador to Iraq, who spoke via video from Baghdad. Then General Casey, Rumsfield and Rice all gave presentations. After all this, there was only about 15 minutes for these former cabinet officers to speak.
When the 911 Commission interviewed both Bush and Cheney, they were expecting Bush to defer to Cheney. Instead Bush spoke 95% of the time and Cheney the remainder.
Attorney General
John Ashcroft was not Bush’s first choice for Attorney General. Bush wanted Montana governor Mac Racicot. Racicot couldn’t afford a plane ticket to the inaugural, much less four more years as a government employee. I find that odd. Bush felt Ashcroft was a problem for his presidency and asked Ashcroft to leave after Bush’s first term. Then Bush appointed Alberto Gonzales, who wasn’t anybody’s idea of a brilliant legal mind.
Rice
Rice likes to read (only non-fiction). She learned how to read sheet music at the age of three and became concert pianist by 13. She felt she would never reach a level of distinction in the music world, so she started to study Russian.
She told a close friend the reason why she is not married is that there were few African American men who could cope with a woman of her stature. (Then why doesn’t she look at white or Hispanic men?)
Social Security
Bush has always wanted to privatize social security and encourage people to save for retirement. Many of his experts in this area told Bush the Social Security trust fund would not run out until 2041 and even then we could fund 70% of what was promised. Bush ignored all this and forged ahead with his plan. His attitude seemed to be “Don’t confuse me with the facts”.
New Orleans
I am not sure any of us here in California can really comprehend all the devastation of Katrina. One church in New Orleans had over 100 members vanish and were never heard or seen again.
Bush was at Crawford Texas when the Katrina hit several states in the south. His aides told him he should go back to Washington to deal with this new situation. It was urgent he go back as quickly as possible. He did go back quickly, however not as quickly as when he had to go back to Washington to sign the bill that would keep Terri Schiavo alive.
Gays
As the governor of Texas, Bush was quoted to have said, “Let me tell you my view when I was asked about gays in my staff, I said: How do you know? Let me tell you my view about sex. It’s private. It’s not my business. I don’t want to know. I don’t want to know about your sex life, and I’m not interested in you knowing mine.
Just months prior to the 2004 elections, Bush stated very firmly his position marriage is only for one man and one woman. After the elections, he barely ever spoke about it. He was content to let the issue die.
Like me
Surprisingly one area I am very much like Bush. Time. He expects people to be early for meetings and he starts every meeting on time. (Clinton often kept people waiting for an hour or so) Bush demand letters get a response within days of receiving them. (With Clinton, it might be months)
The author spent months preparing this book, which included interviews with George W. Bush. In passing, Bush had mentioned to Mr. Draper (December 2006) that he was working on finishing reading his 87th book that year. I find that a little hard to believe. First, I wasn’t aware that Bush could read let alone read eighty some books a year. That would be more than one a week. Either he is lying or he doesn’t do much about being president and so has the time to read this many books or both. I am retired and I haven’t read that many books this year.
Later in the book, it is obvious Bush doesn’t read any news magazine even if a story is related to an issue he is working. He reads books, but not news magazines. Strange?
Republican publisher Steve Forbes is to have said of George W. Bush: Bush is a nice guy but an empty suite with no philosophical underpinnings.
Rove
Karl Rove and Karen Hughes can’t stand each other.
There is a story about Rove as a teenager in 1960. He boasted to a girl that he was a strong supporter for Richard Nixon. The girl came from a Catholic family and was supporting Kennedy. When he told her that he was supporting Nixon, she knocked him to the sidewalk and smashed his nose.
Camp David
The road to Camp David is so far up in the mountains that one day Bush tried to use his cell phone to make a call and realized he couldn’t get reception. You would think that things like that would have been fixed years ago. It is fixed now.
Iraq and 911
Bush can be very funny at times. Such as the “mission accomplished” event regarding the “end of the Iraq War”. Or when he said, “I just don’t think it’s the role of the US government tell people what to do. We do it this way, so should you”.
Cheney can be funny too. “If you wait for intelligence to drive policy, you will have waited too long.”
Dick Armey tried to tell the Bush administration before the attack on Iraq this could turn into a quagmire. Cheney’s response was: “We have great information. They’re going to welcome us. It will be like the American army going through the streets of Paris. They’re sitting there ready to form a new government. The people will be so happy with their freedoms we’ll probably back ourselves out of there within a month or two”. Armey didn’t buy it. Colin Powell also raised some concerns whether this was the correct path to take.
In Jan 2006, Bush had a meeting with 13 former Secretaries of State and Defense to get “their assessment of Iraq”. Photographers came in to take pictures of Bush “consulting with these former cabinet officers”. Bush introduced the ambassador to Iraq, who spoke via video from Baghdad. Then General Casey, Rumsfield and Rice all gave presentations. After all this, there was only about 15 minutes for these former cabinet officers to speak.
When the 911 Commission interviewed both Bush and Cheney, they were expecting Bush to defer to Cheney. Instead Bush spoke 95% of the time and Cheney the remainder.
Attorney General
John Ashcroft was not Bush’s first choice for Attorney General. Bush wanted Montana governor Mac Racicot. Racicot couldn’t afford a plane ticket to the inaugural, much less four more years as a government employee. I find that odd. Bush felt Ashcroft was a problem for his presidency and asked Ashcroft to leave after Bush’s first term. Then Bush appointed Alberto Gonzales, who wasn’t anybody’s idea of a brilliant legal mind.
Rice
Rice likes to read (only non-fiction). She learned how to read sheet music at the age of three and became concert pianist by 13. She felt she would never reach a level of distinction in the music world, so she started to study Russian.
She told a close friend the reason why she is not married is that there were few African American men who could cope with a woman of her stature. (Then why doesn’t she look at white or Hispanic men?)
Social Security
Bush has always wanted to privatize social security and encourage people to save for retirement. Many of his experts in this area told Bush the Social Security trust fund would not run out until 2041 and even then we could fund 70% of what was promised. Bush ignored all this and forged ahead with his plan. His attitude seemed to be “Don’t confuse me with the facts”.
New Orleans
I am not sure any of us here in California can really comprehend all the devastation of Katrina. One church in New Orleans had over 100 members vanish and were never heard or seen again.
Bush was at Crawford Texas when the Katrina hit several states in the south. His aides told him he should go back to Washington to deal with this new situation. It was urgent he go back as quickly as possible. He did go back quickly, however not as quickly as when he had to go back to Washington to sign the bill that would keep Terri Schiavo alive.
Gays
As the governor of Texas, Bush was quoted to have said, “Let me tell you my view when I was asked about gays in my staff, I said: How do you know? Let me tell you my view about sex. It’s private. It’s not my business. I don’t want to know. I don’t want to know about your sex life, and I’m not interested in you knowing mine.
Just months prior to the 2004 elections, Bush stated very firmly his position marriage is only for one man and one woman. After the elections, he barely ever spoke about it. He was content to let the issue die.
Like me
Surprisingly one area I am very much like Bush. Time. He expects people to be early for meetings and he starts every meeting on time. (Clinton often kept people waiting for an hour or so) Bush demand letters get a response within days of receiving them. (With Clinton, it might be months)
May 15, 2019
Drapers book was released in 2007 when Bush still had just under 2 years left in office, because of this he misses out on covering the financial crisis of 2008 which was a crucial part of the presidency. He also ends the book right after Bush announces the surge in Iraq in 2007, so no insight is provided as to its successes. Draper succeeds in covering the politics behind the situations, the 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006 elections are all covered in detail more so than most books about the Bush presidency. The book also covers the early failures of the Iraq War well, and goes in depth describing why the rebuilding was not working. However without the analysis on the surge or any historical context behind it his commentary on the war can only go so far.
June 23, 2025
The intro led me to believe this was going to be a hatchet job. But since I am not a fan of "W" or his administration I went ahead anyway. Turns out the author takes a fairly even-handed approach to his subject. "W' comes across as an OK guy, with a good moral compass. Interestingly, there is almost no mention of VP Dick Cheney or Sec'y of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. Strange, because the conventional wisdom at the time was that Bush was merely a puppet and these two ran things. Bush is depicted in the book as decidedly in-charge, confident in his Texas swagger. I am curious as to the truth of the matter.
March 3, 2022
In my quest to read a biography of every president, from Ford onward it's been tough to find books that are not overly political (Meacham's book on George HW Bush is an exception). This one, written before the end of Bush 43's second term (leaving out the great recession) was surprisingly good for being so close to the action. I think the descriptions and analyses hold up almost 2 decades out.
March 27, 2019
I thought I knew a lot about George W. Bush's lof and presidency. The author covers W.'s life before and during his presidency. Draaprrt does not always paint a positive picture of the former president. I was not aware that father and son were at odds at times. This is a very readable book.
August 14, 2025
3.5 stars. It has a different perspective than other books I've read about the Bush presidency. I thought it skipped over a lot of Cheney's influence on Bush which I've read elsewhere. The author is a journalist who had good access. It's not hagiography and has nuance, which I liked.
February 21, 2018
Incisive portrait of George W. Bush which takes him into his second term. A balanced account by a shrewd observer of Texas and Washington D.C. politics.
May 18, 2008
As advertised, this is a reasonably nuanced view of Bush's character as it impacts his Presidency. In my view, based upon other things I have read, Draper is probably somewhat kinder to Bush than is warranted.
Draper conducted 6 lengthy interviews with Bush himself, as well as interviews with others in the administration, and these form the basis for much of the material in the book. Based on Draper's Author's Notes, it does not appear that he relied much on interviews or other testimony from non-Administration sources. Since nearly everyone who is or was in the Administration at least started out as a friend, admirer or supporter of Bush, one would expect the picture of Bush to emerge to be more sympathetic than not. And, by and large, that is the case. What is interesting is that, notwithstanding the bias inherent in the underlying sources, evidence of Bush's faults and weaknesses is apparent.
Although Draper doesn't focus on the issue of Bush's intelligence, it does come up occasionally, mostly in comments by others that Bush is not as dumb as is often believed. I've given this some thought over the last few years, and this book as well as others I have read--and my own observations of Bush through speeches, press conferences and the like--lead me to think that, while he isn't "stupid" or "dumb", he is at best a mediocre intellect. That might be fine for an ordinary businessman (although I suspect that Bush never would have been an effective CEO of a real company), but for the President of the United States, it has been close to a disaster.
One of the recurring themes of this book is Bush's observations on the nature of leadership; in fact, Bush seems obsessed with the subject and with performing as a "strong leader". Although Draper doesn't really editorialize on this, Bush seems to have derived his notions on this subject from the matchbook school of leadership. He has an extremely simplistic and superficial view of leadership--it involves never showing weakness and always being optimistic, and it certainly does not allow any acknowledgment, let alone recognition, of mistakes or of the need to revisit decisions in light of results.
Draper also provides some evidence that Bush's management style, implemented by the White House staff, as well as his personality, discouraged staffers from voicing dissenting opinions or bringing to his attention facts which contradict the "group think" point of view. The infamous "Bush Bubble" is in evidence throughout this book, although Draper does not emphasize it.
Draper underplays the lack of intellectual curiosity and the unwillingness of Bush to be engaged by details. Bush, of course, excuses this by referring to his role as requiring him to focus on the "big" issues. But, of course, an effective, competent President must pay attention to detail as well as big issues. What Bush derides as "small ball" is a critical part of governance--making sure that all of the "small" things that government does, it does properly.
This is by no means the definitive work on Bush; that will require the passage of time as well as a broader scope of interviews. However, it is an interesting and nuanced portrait.
Draper conducted 6 lengthy interviews with Bush himself, as well as interviews with others in the administration, and these form the basis for much of the material in the book. Based on Draper's Author's Notes, it does not appear that he relied much on interviews or other testimony from non-Administration sources. Since nearly everyone who is or was in the Administration at least started out as a friend, admirer or supporter of Bush, one would expect the picture of Bush to emerge to be more sympathetic than not. And, by and large, that is the case. What is interesting is that, notwithstanding the bias inherent in the underlying sources, evidence of Bush's faults and weaknesses is apparent.
Although Draper doesn't focus on the issue of Bush's intelligence, it does come up occasionally, mostly in comments by others that Bush is not as dumb as is often believed. I've given this some thought over the last few years, and this book as well as others I have read--and my own observations of Bush through speeches, press conferences and the like--lead me to think that, while he isn't "stupid" or "dumb", he is at best a mediocre intellect. That might be fine for an ordinary businessman (although I suspect that Bush never would have been an effective CEO of a real company), but for the President of the United States, it has been close to a disaster.
One of the recurring themes of this book is Bush's observations on the nature of leadership; in fact, Bush seems obsessed with the subject and with performing as a "strong leader". Although Draper doesn't really editorialize on this, Bush seems to have derived his notions on this subject from the matchbook school of leadership. He has an extremely simplistic and superficial view of leadership--it involves never showing weakness and always being optimistic, and it certainly does not allow any acknowledgment, let alone recognition, of mistakes or of the need to revisit decisions in light of results.
Draper also provides some evidence that Bush's management style, implemented by the White House staff, as well as his personality, discouraged staffers from voicing dissenting opinions or bringing to his attention facts which contradict the "group think" point of view. The infamous "Bush Bubble" is in evidence throughout this book, although Draper does not emphasize it.
Draper underplays the lack of intellectual curiosity and the unwillingness of Bush to be engaged by details. Bush, of course, excuses this by referring to his role as requiring him to focus on the "big" issues. But, of course, an effective, competent President must pay attention to detail as well as big issues. What Bush derides as "small ball" is a critical part of governance--making sure that all of the "small" things that government does, it does properly.
This is by no means the definitive work on Bush; that will require the passage of time as well as a broader scope of interviews. However, it is an interesting and nuanced portrait.
October 23, 2009
This is an engaging and page-turning historical and literary narrative of the first six years of the G W Bush Presidency and the preceding 2000 Presidential campaign. The recently completed Bush presidency is obviously a consequential, controversial and intriguing time in American history. The book begins with a statement from the President to the author in late 2006 that you “can’t possibly figure out my Presidency until I’m dead.” What the author then does for the rest of the book is to demonstrate how complicated and complex this administration was, through the use of the form of literary narrative by character driven incidents, from first hand accounts from the President and those closest to him in his family and his staff.
Draper is a journalist, originally from Texas and now with GQ. His intent with this book is to let the actors speak for themselves, within the narrative he set up. As a result, all the major events that he covered are included: from the 2000 GOP nomination, September 11, the Iraq War, the 2004 re-election campaign, and Hurricane Katrina. Draper’s style is heavily influenced by his interviewees. A distracting element of Draper’s writing is to fill in emotions with his own vivid descriptions around the dialogue that drives his narrative. Also, being a contemporary journalist, his writing is a bit too colloquial at times, using slang to describe events, for instance.
The narrative that develops, from 1999 to early 2007 is of a complex, human man, whose political actions are driven by his convictions. Some of the more valuable incidents in the book show Bush’s management style and why he managed people and problems the way he did. This is a fair book. Given an extraordinary amount of access to the personal thoughts, and feelings, of the top Bush administration officials, Draper does not overly praise people, or take excess opportunity to criticize. Even Bush is highly self-aware of the problems he faces, his shortcomings as a leader, and his strengths. Instead he lets incidents speak for themselves. For example, in retelling the events around Hurricane Katrina, Draper shows how the President’s management style led the administration to be aloof from the aftermath, but more in control of the situation, once roused into action, and really more in control than the Louisiana politicians.
This is not a comprehensive narrative. For example, the South Carolina primary in 2000 gets over ten pages, the fall 2000 campaign against Al Gore and Florida recount, gets just a few paragraphs. Yet this book is a valuable contribution to understanding the Bush years, because of the high level of candid interviews that the author had with the people at the top. Because the book ends early in 2007, and misses the major events that took place over the last quarter of the Bush administration, perhaps a second edition of the book would be needed to show how the President reacted to events, once he had he reached the low point of service. That Bush was “dead certain” of his convictions and his actions based on them, would be further fleshed out.
Draper is a journalist, originally from Texas and now with GQ. His intent with this book is to let the actors speak for themselves, within the narrative he set up. As a result, all the major events that he covered are included: from the 2000 GOP nomination, September 11, the Iraq War, the 2004 re-election campaign, and Hurricane Katrina. Draper’s style is heavily influenced by his interviewees. A distracting element of Draper’s writing is to fill in emotions with his own vivid descriptions around the dialogue that drives his narrative. Also, being a contemporary journalist, his writing is a bit too colloquial at times, using slang to describe events, for instance.
The narrative that develops, from 1999 to early 2007 is of a complex, human man, whose political actions are driven by his convictions. Some of the more valuable incidents in the book show Bush’s management style and why he managed people and problems the way he did. This is a fair book. Given an extraordinary amount of access to the personal thoughts, and feelings, of the top Bush administration officials, Draper does not overly praise people, or take excess opportunity to criticize. Even Bush is highly self-aware of the problems he faces, his shortcomings as a leader, and his strengths. Instead he lets incidents speak for themselves. For example, in retelling the events around Hurricane Katrina, Draper shows how the President’s management style led the administration to be aloof from the aftermath, but more in control of the situation, once roused into action, and really more in control than the Louisiana politicians.
This is not a comprehensive narrative. For example, the South Carolina primary in 2000 gets over ten pages, the fall 2000 campaign against Al Gore and Florida recount, gets just a few paragraphs. Yet this book is a valuable contribution to understanding the Bush years, because of the high level of candid interviews that the author had with the people at the top. Because the book ends early in 2007, and misses the major events that took place over the last quarter of the Bush administration, perhaps a second edition of the book would be needed to show how the President reacted to events, once he had he reached the low point of service. That Bush was “dead certain” of his convictions and his actions based on them, would be further fleshed out.
January 12, 2008
It took me so long to get through I feel like I forgot what the first half was about--how he became governor, his popularity because of his "shoot from the gut," simple-man attitude, his obsession and competitiveness with exercise and competition, his distaste for unplanned, unorchestrated press events--but then those are just a few the thematic strands wrapped around a whole lot of politics and a dizzying list of political characters.
The epilogue is a nice wrap-up, summarizing Draper's final thoughts on the character of Bush, and is worth reading by itself: the question that resonated for me was, "Was a man really all that secure with himself if he felt compelled to assert, over and over, that he never wavered, never lost a wink of sleep, and harbored no regrets? What bespoke the compulsive optimism--and was it, in the end, worth the sacrifice of credibility?" Draper himself doesn't answer the question; the book's aim is to let you draw your own conclusions from his accounts of the defining moments of Bush's presidency: New Hampshire, 9/11, Iraq, Katrina (which will anger you all over again), and all the political maneuverings in between.
Draper gives ample evidence to support and disprove the stereotypes that have swaddled Bush since his governorship and presidency. Hardest for my liberal throat to swallow was his assertion that Bush is actually quite knowledgeable about certain world events and leaders, yet a fair number political advisors attested as much, lamenting that side doesn't reveal itself often enough in the media. I can be persuaded to believe them once I consider the multitude of evidence presented of Bush's tendency to be more passive/reactionary rather than proactive, as well as his "compulsive optimism" that blinded him to the realities of his presidency often until it was too late. Overall, an interesting, at times overwhelmingly detailed, read about our current president--and how often do we get so much information about or current commander in chief?
The epilogue is a nice wrap-up, summarizing Draper's final thoughts on the character of Bush, and is worth reading by itself: the question that resonated for me was, "Was a man really all that secure with himself if he felt compelled to assert, over and over, that he never wavered, never lost a wink of sleep, and harbored no regrets? What bespoke the compulsive optimism--and was it, in the end, worth the sacrifice of credibility?" Draper himself doesn't answer the question; the book's aim is to let you draw your own conclusions from his accounts of the defining moments of Bush's presidency: New Hampshire, 9/11, Iraq, Katrina (which will anger you all over again), and all the political maneuverings in between.
Draper gives ample evidence to support and disprove the stereotypes that have swaddled Bush since his governorship and presidency. Hardest for my liberal throat to swallow was his assertion that Bush is actually quite knowledgeable about certain world events and leaders, yet a fair number political advisors attested as much, lamenting that side doesn't reveal itself often enough in the media. I can be persuaded to believe them once I consider the multitude of evidence presented of Bush's tendency to be more passive/reactionary rather than proactive, as well as his "compulsive optimism" that blinded him to the realities of his presidency often until it was too late. Overall, an interesting, at times overwhelmingly detailed, read about our current president--and how often do we get so much information about or current commander in chief?
October 26, 2007
Dead Certain is a balanced report on Bush as President. After early chapters on his background and the primary race, Dead Certain is a fast-paced chronicle of all the major events of his presidency. The author provides great inside details, suprisingly candid information from all the inner circle, and great explanations of the machinations of the Executive Branch. The author remains non-partisan, but provides sound analysis of both his triumphs and mistakes.
Did this change my perception of Bush? Yes. Bush is not dumb, and he is a do-gooder deep down. Until 9/11, Bush truly tried to be the "uniter" (as opposed to the "divider.") He worked to bring together a coalition of Democrats and Republicans for centrist goals such as No Child Left Behind. But something snapped after 9/11, and Bush basically squandered the rest of his presidency and any political capital in Iraq and the War on Terror. This is echoed in the title and theme of the book, Dead Certain.
Why I didn't give it more stars is because it attempts to accomplish too much in a short book. Dead Certain fast forwards through any post-9/11 explanation of the fundamental psychological changes Bush underwent (although to be fair, not much information may be available.) Similarly, the author glosses over the entire Hurricane Katrina story in a mere 10 pages, leaving many questions unanswered. But I would highly recommend this book.
Did this change my perception of Bush? Yes. Bush is not dumb, and he is a do-gooder deep down. Until 9/11, Bush truly tried to be the "uniter" (as opposed to the "divider.") He worked to bring together a coalition of Democrats and Republicans for centrist goals such as No Child Left Behind. But something snapped after 9/11, and Bush basically squandered the rest of his presidency and any political capital in Iraq and the War on Terror. This is echoed in the title and theme of the book, Dead Certain.
Why I didn't give it more stars is because it attempts to accomplish too much in a short book. Dead Certain fast forwards through any post-9/11 explanation of the fundamental psychological changes Bush underwent (although to be fair, not much information may be available.) Similarly, the author glosses over the entire Hurricane Katrina story in a mere 10 pages, leaving many questions unanswered. But I would highly recommend this book.
August 15, 2008
Well, I got through about half of the book's content and decided to fold. I feel sorry for anyone unfortunate enough to have bought this little stinker. The good news is that most books now are printed with soy ink. Cut out the pages, shred them, and you'd have a nice mulch for your garden.
So here's the deal: I noticed in his end notes that he suggests the second half of his book is primarily informed by personal interviews with Bush. The other half, he maintains, he researched extensively with other administration officials. Be that as it may, David Draper is to Bob Woodward as Danielle Steele is to Jane Austen.
I'm seeing this book as part of a disturbing tread I've noticed in journalism the past couple of years: the kind of journalism that makes Matt Tabbibi famous (acting like a pundit while hiding behind a press badge and impressing upon the reader his urgent need to appear clever by expressing a wealth of irrelevant pop-cultural references.) There's a reason why Chuck Klosterman is a writer for Spin magazine and not the Atlantic. If I had to sum up my experience, I'd say: "Dead Certain is a great tourist's guide to the Bush administration in 2006 and 2007. It's got about as much appeal and insight as your garden variety Wikipedia entry."
So here's the deal: I noticed in his end notes that he suggests the second half of his book is primarily informed by personal interviews with Bush. The other half, he maintains, he researched extensively with other administration officials. Be that as it may, David Draper is to Bob Woodward as Danielle Steele is to Jane Austen.
I'm seeing this book as part of a disturbing tread I've noticed in journalism the past couple of years: the kind of journalism that makes Matt Tabbibi famous (acting like a pundit while hiding behind a press badge and impressing upon the reader his urgent need to appear clever by expressing a wealth of irrelevant pop-cultural references.) There's a reason why Chuck Klosterman is a writer for Spin magazine and not the Atlantic. If I had to sum up my experience, I'd say: "Dead Certain is a great tourist's guide to the Bush administration in 2006 and 2007. It's got about as much appeal and insight as your garden variety Wikipedia entry."
November 11, 2007
President Bush's mistakes and his successes, told through the lens of a straight-forward biography, "Dead Certain" reveals the aggravating and often-times heartfelt choices of President Bush, an exercise-addict, a man consumed with his legacy as he approaches the end of his 8 year presidency, and a father, husband, and man of faith.
Compulsively readable, and filled with humanizing and terrifying stories about President Bush's humanity, his beliefs, and his arrogance/mishandling of an invasion turned occupation that we weren't prepared to deal with. The most heart-breaking accounts are of his unawareness of Paul Bremer's dissolving of the Iraqi Army, the fly-over and misjudgments and political appointments surrounding Hurricane Katrina, and the lack of mention of either veterans or the victims of the hurricanes in multiple State of the Union Addresses. His nicknames, his relationship with his father, and his devotion to visiting the wounded stick out as highlights to me.
He's not sure what will consume his life when he isn't President any more. I wonder as well. His choices have devastating consequences for our nation, long-term.
Compulsively readable, and filled with humanizing and terrifying stories about President Bush's humanity, his beliefs, and his arrogance/mishandling of an invasion turned occupation that we weren't prepared to deal with. The most heart-breaking accounts are of his unawareness of Paul Bremer's dissolving of the Iraqi Army, the fly-over and misjudgments and political appointments surrounding Hurricane Katrina, and the lack of mention of either veterans or the victims of the hurricanes in multiple State of the Union Addresses. His nicknames, his relationship with his father, and his devotion to visiting the wounded stick out as highlights to me.
He's not sure what will consume his life when he isn't President any more. I wonder as well. His choices have devastating consequences for our nation, long-term.
March 18, 2010
A surprisingly fair, although incomplete, look at the Bush 43 presidency. You can tell that Draper had substantial access to the president and his staff. As a result his analysis (virtues and flaws) of Bush both as a president and as a person has a refreshing sense of credibility. Draper does not rely on stereotypes, but he does address them. Also, his writing style is unique and engaging (he uses a method in which he occasionally italicizes internal/unspoken thoughts).
Two things that I found interesting and have to mention are 1) Bush begging Henry Paulson to be Sec. of Treasury (Paulson eventually caved, clearly not having a clue what he was in for), and 2) the foreboding sense of failure in Iraq before 2007 surge. In retrospect it would have been hard to anticipate in 2007 (when this book was published) that the US would face an unprecedented financial collapse and Iraq would be running smoothly!
Two things that I found interesting and have to mention are 1) Bush begging Henry Paulson to be Sec. of Treasury (Paulson eventually caved, clearly not having a clue what he was in for), and 2) the foreboding sense of failure in Iraq before 2007 surge. In retrospect it would have been hard to anticipate in 2007 (when this book was published) that the US would face an unprecedented financial collapse and Iraq would be running smoothly!
February 3, 2008
Given the controversy that has occurred during W's presidency, it's hard to find a biography that doesn't cater to one end of the political spectrum. Having written for Texas Monthly and GQ, Draper isn't a political writer. He had written a rather favorable article about Bush when he was governor of Texas and was therefore granted an unprecedented six (or so) interviews with the president and his staff, including Rove.
You're not going to find a book that absolves him or, conversely, lists every sin, but that's what makes this a good book. Because Draper didn't appear to be going into the project with an agenda of skewering Bush, when criticism does emerge in the narrative, it is that much more damning. The book reads like a novel and tells a story like an Arthur Miller tragedy.
You're not going to find a book that absolves him or, conversely, lists every sin, but that's what makes this a good book. Because Draper didn't appear to be going into the project with an agenda of skewering Bush, when criticism does emerge in the narrative, it is that much more damning. The book reads like a novel and tells a story like an Arthur Miller tragedy.
January 20, 2009
Draper in his book's final pages states that, "...my principal aim in this text was to render Bush as a many-shaded literary character." To this, I must say, "Mission Accomplished". He covers approximately a decade, including much of the country's George W. years. It's an easy read, and due to the subject matter it stirs memories that are not that far under the surface for most of us. However, I must say that I got more out of Scott McClellan's book, "What Happened", and in asking myself why this was the case, came to the realization that it was a more personal account and felt more in touch with the actual events. I personally found Draper's "many-shades" to be too hard to engage with and McClellan presented a more cohesive and more realistic account of Bush, the person.
November 25, 2007
Reading this book was like being a fly on the wall during George Bush's presidency. Whereas I suppose a Bush fan might take umbrage at the portrait of Bush as a ridiculously optimistic and shallow thinker, I was amazed to find out he is as engaged in governing as depicted. The book reads like a light Bob Woodward meets the NY Post - a little gossipy and heavy on the personal details surrounding all the major milestones of the last seven years. I can honestly say I really have no idea from what political persuasion the author was writing, but if he was really privy to all *that* he must have friends in high places. Highly recommended to Bush fans and foes alike!
August 19, 2014
A well-written and balanced account of the lives and characters inside the previous administration. The former Texas Monthly writer draws a portrait of George W Bush that moves beyond the partisan hysteria or equally inane hagiographic worship of previous writers, drawing out with great sensitivity and yet unsparing clarity Bush's essential qualities. This book also provides an insightful guide (for lay-readers of domestic politics) to the administration's political strategy - its strengths and failures - something that members of the current administration might do well to examine and digest.
October 7, 2007
I have always been astonished at how different 41 and 43 appeared to be. After reading this book I will no longer even think of them as being related. 43 is a product of his priveledged Texas upbringing. He operates as if wearing blinders, seeing only the path he has selected and not the whole world of influences. He seems to inspire loyalty, but mostly from his Texan entourage. This was a good read, a good character study. I am curious why the book I read was titled "Dead Certain:The Presidency of George Bush". Otherwise it is the same jacket cover and author and liner notes.
November 16, 2007
I thought the author offered some interesting insights on the psychology behind Bush's decision making process, and how his background has influenced the way he governs. However, he glosses over the influence of Bush's religion on his decision making and the role that Dick Cheney has played in the presidency. I feel that I have a better understanding now of why Bush makes the decisions he does, but I still don't agree with them. In fact, I think after reading the book I have an even lower tolerance for his idiotic decision making.
June 2, 2008
This was an up close look into the character of George W. Bush. Robert Draper was granted 6 one on one interviews with the President which gives this book authority as far as describing Bush's quirks and foibles. Its not an attack on Bush but neither is it an affirmation of his presidency; the facts are weighted against Bush's words and readers are left to make their own conclusions.
For me, a native of Washington D.C., the book brings to life the turbulent Bush White House, the goings on of which were 39 miles down the road from me for 5 years.
For me, a native of Washington D.C., the book brings to life the turbulent Bush White House, the goings on of which were 39 miles down the road from me for 5 years.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 68 reviews