Okay, this is the last time I'm going to mention the Paul O'Neill book (I think). There is a lot to criticize the President for with regards to Paul O'Neill, but I doubt any of it is in the book. At least not explicitly.
Most commentators seem hell-bent on taking the book's criticisms to the White House for answers. Fine, if that's what they want. But, the real question is how on Earth did President Bush appoint this man? He apparently didn't vet him for his views - on tax cuts, Iraq, Israel, etc. - before hiring him.
The President is, in many ways, the CEO of the government. He's responsible for all the big appointments and setting the tone, objectives, etc. for this organization. President Bush's MBA and business experience were emphasized during the 2000 election as an asset that he would bring to the position.
Treasury Secretary is a big job and from the word "go", it was pretty obvious that O'Neill wasn't fitting in with either the tone (think Bono trip) or the objectives (think tax cuts) that the President (supposedly) had set. It's one thing for an appointee to not work out, not deliver, but it's quite another to find that the appointee never agreed with the objectives to begin with.
This is clearly a big question mark over the President's capacity to manage this organization. I'm still waiting for one of the Democratic contenders to realize this.
