What do you think?
Rate this book
A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency
What will be the legacy of President George Walker Bush? In this fascinating, timely book, Glenn Greenwald examines the Bush presidency and its long-term effect on the nation. What began on shaky, uncertain ground and was bolstered and propelled by tragedy, has ultimately faltered and failed on the back of the dichotomous worldview—good versus evil—that once served it so well. In A Tragic Legacy, Greenwald charts the rise and steep fall of the current administration, dissecting the rhetoric and revealing the faulty ideals upon which George W. Bush built his policies.
On September 12, 2001, President Bush addressed the nation and presented a very clear view of what was to come—a view that can be said to define his entire presidency: “This will be a monumental struggle of good versus evil.” Based on his own Christian faith and backed by biblical allusions, Bush’s worldview was basic and binary—and everyone was forced to choose a side. Riding high on public support, Bush sailed through the early “War on Terror,” easily defining our enemies and clearly setting an agenda for defeating them.
But once the war became murkier—its target unclear, its combatants no longer seen in black-and-white—support for Bush and his policies dropped precipitously. Glenn Greenwald brilliantly reveals the reasons behind the collapse of Bush’s power and approval, and argues that his greatest weakness is the same rhetoric that once propelled him so far forward. Facing issues that could not be turned into simple good versus evil choices—the disaster of Hurricane Katrina, his plans for Social Security “reform,” and, most ironic, the failed Dubai ports deal—Bush faltered and fell. Now, Greenwald argues, Bush is trapped by his own choices, unable to break out of the mold that once served him so well, and indifferent to the consequences.
A Tragic Legacy is the first true character study of one of the most controversial men ever to hold the office of president. Enlightening, powerful, and eye-opening, this is an in-depth look at the man whose incapability and cowboy logic have left America at risk.
From the Hardcover edition.
On September 12, 2001, President Bush addressed the nation and presented a very clear view of what was to come—a view that can be said to define his entire presidency: “This will be a monumental struggle of good versus evil.” Based on his own Christian faith and backed by biblical allusions, Bush’s worldview was basic and binary—and everyone was forced to choose a side. Riding high on public support, Bush sailed through the early “War on Terror,” easily defining our enemies and clearly setting an agenda for defeating them.
But once the war became murkier—its target unclear, its combatants no longer seen in black-and-white—support for Bush and his policies dropped precipitously. Glenn Greenwald brilliantly reveals the reasons behind the collapse of Bush’s power and approval, and argues that his greatest weakness is the same rhetoric that once propelled him so far forward. Facing issues that could not be turned into simple good versus evil choices—the disaster of Hurricane Katrina, his plans for Social Security “reform,” and, most ironic, the failed Dubai ports deal—Bush faltered and fell. Now, Greenwald argues, Bush is trapped by his own choices, unable to break out of the mold that once served him so well, and indifferent to the consequences.
A Tragic Legacy is the first true character study of one of the most controversial men ever to hold the office of president. Enlightening, powerful, and eye-opening, this is an in-depth look at the man whose incapability and cowboy logic have left America at risk.
From the Hardcover edition.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published June 26, 2007
20 people are currently reading
1059 people want to read
About the author
Glenn Greenwald
17 books809 followersGlenn Greenwald is an American lawyer, columnist, blogger and author who worked as a constitutional and civil-rights litigator prior to becoming a contributor (columnist and blogger) to Salon.com, where he focuses on political and legal topics. He has also contributed to other newspapers and political news magazines, including The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The American Conservative, The National Interest, and In These Times.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
July 27, 2007
A necessary read for anyone interested in knowing the full extent of the Bush regime's manifold crimes. A civil rights litigator prior to his career as a preeminent commentator in the left-leaning blogosphere, Greenwald lays out his case in a lawyerly fashion. It is impossible to mistake his driving argument - that Bush's overly simplistic view of America's role as essentially Good and America's supposed enemies as essentially Evil has led our nation down the road of failure - and the evidence is replete. Greenwald does not present a tricky rhetorical argument; he has no need to when neoconservatives and Bush supporters are so willing to openly state their nefarious goals and the equally nefarious means used to achieve them. Instead, he does exactly that which Bush and his ilk are incapable of doing: mustering a rational argument based on empirical evidence. How have so many true American patriots been so effectively defamed and sidelined since 9/11? Greenwald's take on the American mainstream media is critical to understanding our pundit class and its creation of political consensus. As difficult as it is to read about our nation's great fall under the Bush regime, seeing the events clearly laid out in stepwise fashion gives hope: Bush's choice of his core beliefs over reason and experience could have only led him to his current abject position. He will never acknowledge his failures, not even privately to the supposedly loving God in whose name he justifies his bellicosity. The American people, however, have already chosen to abandon the boy-king incapable of admitting error and adjusting his course accordingly. In over two hundred years of American history, Bush is without question the worst and most destructive leader we have ever had. If you read only one dissection of the Bush presidency, Greenwald's is an excellent choice. See Greenwald's blog: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
August 18, 2007
Fantastic, insightful, totally depressing. This put together many notions I have been having in the last 6 years in a way that nothing else has. Greenwald knows his stuff. This is what happens when people vote for the guy they'd rather have a beer with than the person who would make the wisest, most responsible leader for this country. Greenwald's blog on Salon is a must-read as well.
August 14, 2008
Methodical, angry, meticulously researched and documented, and very unsettling. This book belongs on the shelf next to Bush On the Couch - it's a terrible indictment of the damage done to America, Iraq, and the rest of the world by George W. Bush and the neocons who support and influence him, and the serious danger that they will make the perversions of American laws and values they've carried out permanent, and that they'll manage to get us into a war with Iran that will make the human and other costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan look petty by comparison.
Everyone should read this before this year's election.
Everyone should read this before this year's election.
November 2, 2009
The subtitle provides the book's basic thesis: "How a Good versus Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency." On page x, the author, Glenn Greenwald, says: ". . .as the end of his presidency approached, historians and political figures from across the political spectrum. . .were speaking of the Bush legacy as one of colossal failure." Why did a presidency that--after 9-11--was so popular become so unpopular (in the public's mind) by 2007? That is the focus of this book.
Greenwald notes that the term "Manichean" comes from a religion founded in Persia the third century. As the author puts it (page 46), "Its central precept was that the entire world could be cleanly divided into two opposing spheres--God and Satan in the world of the eternal. . . ." One of President Bush's most characteristic statements is used to suggest that he adopted a Manichean perspective on the world. The quotation (page 39): ". . .I really, truly view this as a conflict between good and evil. . . . . Either you are with us or you're against us."
Several "case studies" are used to try to make the case that Bush had a simplistic perspective on the world. There is good and there is evil; the President was on the side of good. Hence, anyone who disagreed with him supported evil. The case studies: (a) the rush to war in Iraq; (b) the saber rattling against Iran; (c) the subordination of human rights in order to battles evil.
One can disagree with the application of the Manichean logic to these cases, but Greenwald does make a strong enough case that his perspective must be taken seriously. Indeed, there are clearly elements of a simplistic "us" versus "them" perspective, when any decision making process needs to take into account uncertainty, including the possibility that those who are adversaries are sometimes against us but at other times may serve our interests. As Greenwald points out (and evidence supports), Iran was a great help to the United States with reference to Afghanistan. For the Administration to have ignored this is to indicate that they cherry picked facts, ignoring those that didn't fit the statement that Iran is pure evil and grabbing hold of other information that suggests that Iran could be a problem to the United States and others. The world is more nuanced and complex than such a simple either-or perspective.
However, even though Greenwald lays out a pretty strong case, he undermines it with unnecessary ad hominem attacks. He appears to fall prey to the Bush Administration's tendency to name call those who disagree (and that includes the depressing "outing" of a CIA agent for pretty crass political purposes). When he says that by the end of 2006, vast majorities of Americans saw Bush as untrustworthy, incompetent, and unlikable, he exaggerates to some extent. No doubt, the public turned against the president, but "vast majorities"? To equate the New York Times with Pravda (page 111) is pretty far out--even though the Times did not have its greatest hour in the run up to the Iraq invasion. To say that Bush was "destroying the Republican brand" (page 33) is also "over the top." Did Bush hurt his party? Sure. Destroying it? Over the top. My simple point: If Greenwald used more temperate language, his case would be stronger. For those who agree with him, this is "red meat" that they'll enjoy. Those who supported President Bush will not, of course, take it seriously. But for many readers who are trying to make sense of what some call a failed presidency, such over the top comments only undermine what is an interesting and provocative argument.
Overall, though, this is a thought provoking book and one that helps get one thinking about the Bush presidency and its consequences.
Greenwald notes that the term "Manichean" comes from a religion founded in Persia the third century. As the author puts it (page 46), "Its central precept was that the entire world could be cleanly divided into two opposing spheres--God and Satan in the world of the eternal. . . ." One of President Bush's most characteristic statements is used to suggest that he adopted a Manichean perspective on the world. The quotation (page 39): ". . .I really, truly view this as a conflict between good and evil. . . . . Either you are with us or you're against us."
Several "case studies" are used to try to make the case that Bush had a simplistic perspective on the world. There is good and there is evil; the President was on the side of good. Hence, anyone who disagreed with him supported evil. The case studies: (a) the rush to war in Iraq; (b) the saber rattling against Iran; (c) the subordination of human rights in order to battles evil.
One can disagree with the application of the Manichean logic to these cases, but Greenwald does make a strong enough case that his perspective must be taken seriously. Indeed, there are clearly elements of a simplistic "us" versus "them" perspective, when any decision making process needs to take into account uncertainty, including the possibility that those who are adversaries are sometimes against us but at other times may serve our interests. As Greenwald points out (and evidence supports), Iran was a great help to the United States with reference to Afghanistan. For the Administration to have ignored this is to indicate that they cherry picked facts, ignoring those that didn't fit the statement that Iran is pure evil and grabbing hold of other information that suggests that Iran could be a problem to the United States and others. The world is more nuanced and complex than such a simple either-or perspective.
However, even though Greenwald lays out a pretty strong case, he undermines it with unnecessary ad hominem attacks. He appears to fall prey to the Bush Administration's tendency to name call those who disagree (and that includes the depressing "outing" of a CIA agent for pretty crass political purposes). When he says that by the end of 2006, vast majorities of Americans saw Bush as untrustworthy, incompetent, and unlikable, he exaggerates to some extent. No doubt, the public turned against the president, but "vast majorities"? To equate the New York Times with Pravda (page 111) is pretty far out--even though the Times did not have its greatest hour in the run up to the Iraq invasion. To say that Bush was "destroying the Republican brand" (page 33) is also "over the top." Did Bush hurt his party? Sure. Destroying it? Over the top. My simple point: If Greenwald used more temperate language, his case would be stronger. For those who agree with him, this is "red meat" that they'll enjoy. Those who supported President Bush will not, of course, take it seriously. But for many readers who are trying to make sense of what some call a failed presidency, such over the top comments only undermine what is an interesting and provocative argument.
Overall, though, this is a thought provoking book and one that helps get one thinking about the Bush presidency and its consequences.
May 9, 2014
Greenwald explores how the presidency of George W. Bush radically and fundamentally shifted the ideological and political landscape in the U.S. His war in Iraq was justified by the Manichean premise that the mission he was pursuing was of the highest moral Good, necessary for the preservation of civilization. In the Good vs. Evil view, no limits on presidential powers could be accepted. Greenwald shows how political values long embraced and accepted by America were held to be obsolete and quaint relics of the past; this is seen in the treatment and abuses of detainees, expansion of preexisting and newly created presidential powers, and attacks on freedom of the press. Dissent was equated with treason. The enemy is seen as a moral threat, operating beyond all bounds of humanity, decency and civilized norms These claims are defended by the righteousness of war and the resolve of America to wage it. As a result, the moral standing and credibility of the nation in the eyes of the world has been eroded and may take decades to restore.
March 16, 2014
As tragic an assessment of Bush junior's administration as the title would suggest, Greenwald gives an eloquent elucidation of the personal (mis)traits he blames for the raft of illiberal and ill-advised foreign policy decisions made by America's 43rd president.
The demonstration given in this read, that Dubya's Manichean certitude was permitted to overrun democratic consensus, Congressional consensus, unwelcome political advice and even international conventions, is worrisome enough in itself, for its illustration of the feebleness of such supposed fetters in the absence of rigorous enforcement, yet what is more disconcerting, and fateful, for the future of liberty, accountability and governmental propriety in the US, is the seeeming failure among succeeding personnel (Obama's), to truly recognise the enormity of the precedent set - for unilateral, and even illegal, action - among, and by, the nation's top public office, and to duly redress this.
The demonstration given in this read, that Dubya's Manichean certitude was permitted to overrun democratic consensus, Congressional consensus, unwelcome political advice and even international conventions, is worrisome enough in itself, for its illustration of the feebleness of such supposed fetters in the absence of rigorous enforcement, yet what is more disconcerting, and fateful, for the future of liberty, accountability and governmental propriety in the US, is the seeeming failure among succeeding personnel (Obama's), to truly recognise the enormity of the precedent set - for unilateral, and even illegal, action - among, and by, the nation's top public office, and to duly redress this.
Currently reading
July 30, 2007It's very good so far. No one does a better job describing Bush's assault on the US Constitution than Glenn Greenwald.
December 14, 2016
A damning indictment of the destructive legacy of the Bush administration, a presidency all but guaranteed to go down as the worst in American history which perverted this country's basic values in the service of a man who seems to view himself as some avenging warrior angel waging divine battle against the forces of Pure Evil. Unfortunately, this heroic, evangelical mindset laid the plans for his total and utter ruin as a man compelled by divine forces cannot consider whether or not what he is doing is right - if God is on his side, then nothing he does is wrong, no matter how horrific it truly is (the tortures and indefinite detentions of "enemy combatants" like Jose Padilla are the prime example). A rather disturbing look into a presidency that has been swept almost entirely under the rug by the current conservative movement in order to distance itself from past failures which are all but guaranteed to be repeated once another neo-conservative Republican enters office (see: President Trump).
August 1, 2009
A deeply rigorous and informative book about the simplistic mindset of our last President and its horrendous implications. Long on scholarship, but short on prose style; Greenwald is a lawyer and a blogger, not a nonfiction artist like Emerson or Didion, and it shows in the passable but indifferent writing. Still, Greenwald the writer's penchant for redundancies and brittleness doesn't impede Greenwald the researcher/journalist the way it would in a book with a less informational aim. I ultimately found it very useful and clarifying, and also compulsively readable; again, not for the merely solid writing but for its very handy and well-organized compilation and support of some depressing but vital facts of our recent history.
August 29, 2007
Thorough overview of why it is The Pres never, ever backs down on any policy. I disagree that a war with Iran is likely during the next year; he'd need the absolute backing of the Republican members of Congress in many, many districts where that'd be political suicide. I'm not saying he hasn't come close to it in the past, and would do so, if he thought he could get away with it.
October 29, 2015
The only problem I have with this book is that it's too repetitious in spots. Other than that it is an invaluable analysis of the Bush years; very close to what I saw and experienced myself from 9/11 onwards.
August 26, 2016
Even having lived through this, it's a shocking read! If anyone believes there are checks and balances in place to prevent a leader from destroying the core values our great nation was built on, you need to read this book.
January 25, 2020
This is a good review of George W. Bush's foreign policy mindset. However, the book spent far too much time on the role Iran was playing in that mindset. Written in 2007, it is interesting to look back at what intellectuals were thinking when we were all but doomed in Iraq.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 25, 2012
Although published back in 2008, this is still an informative read for those of us look back at the sheer breadth and depth of destruction brought about by the George W. Bush administration. That Bush 43 was the worst president in American History is difficult to dispute and Greenwald provides a cogent analysis of the "whys" and "how is it possible" aspects despite the fact that the economic debacle of 2008 brought about by de-regulation polices promoted by the Bush Administration had not yet taken place when the book was written. Some readers may be more likely to be convinced that the road to war in Iraq had been tied directly to the greed of oil executives (Bush and Cheney) and their lust for profit than any kind of "god given mssion" to promote democracy. In light of the "no bid" contracts awarded to Haliburton and other insiders, it is difficult to ignore the profit motive behind that disgraceful war. A corporate "gihad" in the name of self interest and money at the expense of countless human lives still haunts many persons of conscience who feel that an international war crimes trial should be warranted. --- This book is well worth reading and is among the best so far on the Bush debacle. Yet, I would be very surprised if anyone in the Bush Administration even knew the meaning of the word "Manichean". What they and their successors in Congress did know all too well is how to weigh money over human lives -- whether it is in war profiteering, supporting gun manufacturers in their quest for more destructive weaponry or in blocking efforts to control greenhouse gasses to fight Global Warming.
October 26, 2007
There's some good content in this book, but I don't think it had an editor: it's 4x longer than it needs to be, and filled with excessively earnest prose and superlative adverbs. Words like "clearly," "undoubtedly," and "manifestly" abound, and usually modify assertions that are not clear, undoubted or manifest to supporters of the war, the Bush admin, etc., and for which you should really have footnotes (there are no endnotes either) to back you up.
He's a much better blogger than he is an author (judging from this book anyway), and you can catch his blog on Slate.
He's a much better blogger than he is an author (judging from this book anyway), and you can catch his blog on Slate.
November 26, 2007
Glenn Greenwald writes a very readable, fired-up blog for Salon. That said, this book was a chore. His specific chapters on the events leading up to the Iraq War are worth reading but I could have used about 100 fewer pages on the theme of Bush's "Manichean morality." The editor was really asleep at the wheel on those introductory chapters.
April 28, 2008
A lot of the book felt like being hit over the head with the same overly simplistic message. There wasn't a lot of depth or insight to the research or writing, which isn't to say that Greenwald doesn't have a point. He does, and it's a valid one, but it could have been said in fewer pages or with greater analysis and/or better overall writing.
October 6, 2009
Major fan of Greenwald's Web site and written work. Unlike most political writers, he has an appreciation for history and an understanding that in today's culture, it is good to remind those in power of what they have said in the past and of holding people to who they truly are. When I had my vague college notions of being a political journalist, this is who I would like to be.
December 10, 2009
Written like a thesis or term page, it was a little redundant, but gets to the point at page 40. Depressing, yet relatable to anyone with a capitalist mentality. Really looking forward to Laura Bush's memoir now. Must read, will enjoy reading again 3 years from now.
November 24, 2011
Only read one chapter - I love Greenwald's work, but this book would be of more interest to someone who doesn't already agree with most/all of his premises. As always, he is great about pointing out various people's hypocrisy.
March 29, 2014
This was an insightful read when it came out in 2007. Bush was not inherently evil but Cheney was. The combination of Bush as President and Cheney as VP became a perfect storm with the fall out being felt to this day.
Read
July 15, 2007i love glenn greenwald.
October 12, 2007
Meh. Moldy blog posts.
January 17, 2008
Actually not that good. I felt like anyone who took a philosophy and political science class could've written this book.
May 30, 2008
pretty good.
January 17, 2009
Amazing that we have a Constitution left.
Want to read
July 25, 2009If were to be able to stand it, and were useful, would be good to know these details. The Dubai ports deal? Duh.. what's that? Eek..
December 21, 2009
i dig glenn greenwald. a lot. this book gets repetitive at times, but only because greenwald is so detailed about his criticisms that he backs each one up with a LOT of examples.
January 27, 2012
I think greenwald is a great writer but he did get quite repetitive.
December 3, 2020
The tragedy of Bush entering 2008 was about to get worse with the Financial crisis and his lack of management of the budget deficit (that he created). Some friends love to blame Clinton but I am sorry .. 8 years after Clinton the mis-management of financial instruments is clearly on Bush in addition to the wasted Iraq II war coming on the heels of Iraq I perpetrted whenhis father knowing that Kuwait was drilling for oil under Iraq chose to do nothing leading to the first war.
Good book.. good to see the failings of men and how we can all be impacted by the righteous bullying. Reading this book after Trump, it is amazing how little has changed. The US has enough money to blow it on other needless conflicts rather than using diplomacy to negotiate commercial and military deals to enhance cooperation in the middle east (not to mention china and russia). The world has changed and climate change requires that oil, coal, natural gas, Intellectual Property are part of commercial deals accompanied by management of justice, prisoners, visas, travelers and a myriad of real world and global needs. The focus on Iraq and Iran and not the Wahabi-shielding Saudis (and others) confounds logic.. especially after the Washington Post reporter was executed by Saudis without any justice.
Thought provoking book and I will read another of his "with liberty and justice for some"
Good book.. good to see the failings of men and how we can all be impacted by the righteous bullying. Reading this book after Trump, it is amazing how little has changed. The US has enough money to blow it on other needless conflicts rather than using diplomacy to negotiate commercial and military deals to enhance cooperation in the middle east (not to mention china and russia). The world has changed and climate change requires that oil, coal, natural gas, Intellectual Property are part of commercial deals accompanied by management of justice, prisoners, visas, travelers and a myriad of real world and global needs. The focus on Iraq and Iran and not the Wahabi-shielding Saudis (and others) confounds logic.. especially after the Washington Post reporter was executed by Saudis without any justice.
Thought provoking book and I will read another of his "with liberty and justice for some"
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews