Bret BaierRecensioni

To Rescue the Constitution: George Washington and the Fragile American Experiment is an excellent telling of the fight that the citizens of the new country went through to become the United States of America. Mainly the importance of George Washington with his gentle, humble and formidable presence who was able to bring everyone together to write the Constitution. It was a fight that needed an honest well respected person to lead the country. Five stars were given to this book which was well written and very well researched.

Another accessible biography by journalist Bret Baier, this time of Ulysses S. Grant. Quick, lucid writing, nice story-telling, and such. Not as meaningful as full-scale biographies by Brands or Chernow, but, another in the line of books seeking to rehabilitate (or habilitate?) Grant's reputation. There is a focus, in part four, on the disputed election of 1876 and Grant's role in, again "rescuing the Republic." There was quite the shenanigans in the election of 1876, and I don't know if anybody, Grant included, come out of it smelling of roses. Baier is trying a tad too much to shoehorn this into the overall theme of his books: turning-points and rescues. There was much information, though, about that election that I did not know before, so it was appreciated. Some okay images, though a mistake in captioning on two. Some historical errors (one on brevets, p. 28) and some typos. Mostly respected secondary sources and printed primary sources; new dumb endnoting system; index.

A bare-bones account of the Revolution and the Constitutional Convention through the eyes and telling of George Washington. Nowhere near as good as Chernow's biographies of Washington and Hamilton, McCullough's of Adams, and Meacham's of Jefferson, it serves as a good introductory account for those who may not know as much as they should about Washington and the birth of the nation. Resting on good secondary source biographies (like those mentioned above) and easily available primary sources, it is not a bad book, it's just not a great book. Okay pictures (though there was an error in captions in my text) with endnotes and an index. Start here if you're a novice or a teen. Start with Chernow, Flexner, or Ellis if you want some real meat on Washington.½

I’ve read dozens of biographies whose subjects were the Founding Fathers and histories of the events surrounding the American Revolution. Many were extremely detailed accounts (such as John Adams and Alexander Hamilton), while others were broader overviews. This would certainly fall in the latter category.

Certainly, George Washington is deserving of a multi-volume treatise. Clearly, the most indispensable of the Founding Fathers, and perhaps the ONLY individual that could have steered the struggling, young nation through its difficult beginning. This book focuses on the aftermath of the American Revolution and the transition from the unworkable Articles of Confederation to the Constitutional Republic which has existed for the past 235 years.

The book gives a very cursory background treatment of Washington’s early years and Revolutionary War service before moving to the post-War struggle to form an effective and workable federal government framework. The book concludes with a less than cursory overview of his subsequent Presidency and short retirement before his death.

There is certainly some good information here, but be aware that the treatment is extremely shallow and relatively simplistic. It is not a bad overview, but the subject matter is deserving of far more.½

I liked the book. It was an easy read. The gave insight into Grant's temperament, his relationship with his wife, Julia, and his indulgence of all his children. The personal portrait helps a person to understand that he was very loyal to people he thought were worthy and as a result, was a target for unscrupulous people within his administration. There were a lot of aspects of Grant's life that were discussed but not in-depth but I understand that Mr. Baier's goal was to give an account of the 1876-77 election crisis and Grant's calculation that the union would be in jeopardy without the compromise that made Rutherford B. Hayes president.

Not as good as Baier's other "Three Days" books, but about an oft-unmentioned topic: the Tehran Conference. Baier tries hard to make the Tehran Conference the turning point of the Second World War, which it could be, but he tries to make it more important than the Yalta Conference, which it wasn't. Half the book is a biographical review of F.D.R.'s life, which is good (though full-length biographies are better). You can read about the Tehran Conference in any good bio of Roosevelt, Churchill, and/or Stalin, but, this is a good recapitulation of the conference. I learned some things (or didn't remember I remembered them). Still, a pretty good book.

My review of Mr. Baier's work is probably impacted by the fact I read Ron Chernow"s Grant a few weeks ago. That said, I'll compare the two. Chernow is the historian while Baier tells us history but with a journalist's twist, and I like that. Reading Chernow, one always knows one is reading about things that happened a hundred or more years ago but, at times, Bret makes it seem contemporary. I would not expect Chernow to address the fact that Lee was, for many years, thought to be the greater general has now been replaced by Grant. No doubt the temperance folks downplayed Grant for his alledged drunkenness but it is clear now that Lee fought over familiar ground while Grant was the Grand Strategist. I think Baier also makes Grant more human although both comment about his humor which has largely been unreported until recently. Both authors work hard to establish that while there were scandals in Grant's presidency, he personally was not involved. Some might argue that if Grant could do such a good job in selecting subordinates as a general, why couldn't he have done a better job as President. Yes, he had some towering subordinate figures as general but he also had some poor ones.
Bottom line: I'm glad I read both of these books so close together. They don't compete so much as complement.

I was very disappointed with THREE DAYS AT THE BRINK BY BRET BAIER. To me it seemed like a repeat of all the bio's of Roosevelt's, which is not what I wanted to read about. Over half of the book deals with the private/public live of FDR, not of the conference in Tehran.

For the final three days of Dwight Eisenhower's administration, he hosted president-elect John Kennedy at what was to be called Camp David (at the time, Shangri-La). The president was trying to prepare the president-elect for the road ahead.

Kennedy didn't really listen.

What followed was a rash of Cold War mistakes including an unsuccessful meeting with Khrushchev and the standoff that led to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Kennedy, fresh off a razor-thin victory over Eisenhower's VP, Nixon, felt he could handle whatever came his way, and was brash and young enough to believe it. He would fill his administration with pointy heads from Ivy League schools, and many were unprepared to meet the Soviets across the table.

This book also touches on the reality that had Eisenhower backed Nixon only a little, Nixon would have won, and the Cold War (and probably the Cuban Missile Crisis) would have gone differently.

Read more of my reviews on Ralphsbooks.

I was a little disappointed, because I was expecting this book to be mostly about what happened at the Tehran conference and its consequences, possibly with some background information about FDR and the US political scene at the time. But pretty much the first third of the book was a biography of FDR, and could have been omitted without much if any impact on the discussion of the Tehran conference. I would have preferred a lot more about the conference and much less about, for example, FDR's extramarital activities. And of course I could have done without some of the modern political intrusions, although they didn't seem too bad in the main body of the book.

I was also surprised that certain things were left out of the book. For example, in a discussion of what brought the United States into World War 1, the Zimmerman telegraph was not mentioned. And the discussion of the misinformation campaign directed toward Germany before the Allied invasion of Sicily did not include anything about Operation Mincemeat.

In addition, I was surprised by this: "It had never before been US policy to obliterate the political systems of enemies, only to win the fight." (Page 252). Except that the Civil War did have as its goal the destruction of the Confederacy and its political systems. The fact that this wasn't mentioned at all seemed very strange to me.

However, I appreciated some of the historical political analysis, such as the discussions of why FDR didn't want to have any substantive discussions with Hoover before taking office and how the American political scene affected FDR's actions during the Tehran conference. I also found the discussion of the effects of the Tehran conference on future US negotiations and politics to be very interesting.

Also, "America first" is apparently nothing new, as the phrase was used during Coolidge's campaign.

I was a little disappointed, because I was expecting this book to be mostly about what happened at the Tehran conference and its consequences, possibly with some background information about FDR and the US political scene at the time. But pretty much the first third of the book was a biography of FDR, and could have been omitted without much if any impact on the discussion of the Tehran conference. I would have preferred a lot more about the conference and much less about, for example, FDR's extramarital activities. And of course I could have done without some of the modern political intrusions, although they didn't seem too bad in the main body of the book.

I was also surprised that certain things were left out of the book. For example, in a discussion of what brought the United States into World War 1, the Zimmerman telegraph was not mentioned. And the discussion of the misinformation campaign directed toward Germany before the Allied invasion of Sicily did not include anything about Operation Mincemeat.

In addition, I was surprised by this: "It had never before been US policy to obliterate the political systems of enemies, only to win the fight." (Page 252). Except that the Civil War did have as its goal the destruction of the Confederacy and its political systems. The fact that this wasn't mentioned at all seemed very strange to me.

However, I appreciated some of the historical political analysis, such as the discussions of why FDR didn't want to have any substantive discussions with Hoover before taking office and how the American political scene affected FDR's actions during the Tehran conference. I also found the discussion of the effects of the Tehran conference on future US negotiations and politics to be very interesting.

Also, "America first" is apparently nothing new, as the phrase was used during Coolidge's campaign.

I love historical novels both fiction and nonfiction, though I rarely have a chance to read nonfiction. It took me a long time to want to read nonfiction after years of forced reading in school. Therefore, I can honestly say that I am not a scholar and read now entirely for enjoyment and I enjoyed reading Three Days at the Brink, by Bret Baier. It was a thoughtful, through and in-depth look at FDR.
Going in I thought this book would be mainly about the Tehran Conference, it was that and so much more. The first of the book covers FDR’s childhood, his rise through the political ranks and to the presidency. The remainder of the book focuses on his presidency through WWII. There was a lot of focus on how he “charmed” both Churchill and Stalin.
Though FDR was not perfect, he was an outstanding statesman. He was the right person at the right time and he was instrumental in the success of the Tehran Conference. I thought Mr. Baier made an honest attempt to present FDR as factual as possible and it made for a fascinating story.
A well written and researched book than any history buff would love to own, and it would make an excellent addition to any collector's WWII archive.
I received a free copy from the publisher in exchange for an honest review.

THREE DAYS AT THE BRINK BY BRET BAIER is the account leading up to Operation Overlord . FDR,Churchill and Stalin all met in Tehran to hammer out the issues of WWII. The leaders needed to come up with a way to eliminate the Nazi threat and defeat Hitler. The answer: invade France. This was not a quick process as it involved many arguments and many debates. In the end Operation Overlord was hatched and the target, after much debate among the three; France.

As a lover of history I could not wait to get ahold of this book. I was a little disappointed at the fact that the majority of the book was a biography of FDR. That is not what I really wanted to read about, even though,in all honesty,it was very thorough. I was more wanting to read about the THREE DAYS AT THE BRINK as the title suggestion, which was not the major focus of the book in my opinion.

Mr.Baier did do one of the most complete amount of research on FDR. The good news, I learned more about FDR than I ever knew before . I did get a very in depth view on the three days in Tehran in which the Allies formed a mission to defeat Hitler & I did enjoy the book . Mr.Baier did a very good job presenting a President whom,up to now, I knew very little about. The bad news, the book only covered the time period in question too infrequent.

All in all I do recommend the book to history lovers as well as those who want a 100% in depth look at one of our most famous Presidents and his life, FDR.

Basically a review of Reagan's life and presidency through the lens of the three days he spent in Moscow at Gorbachev's behest, and his speech to Russian university students there. It's easy to read and understand, and provides a good overview of Reagan and the time period. Some of the more detailed explanations of the speech and Reagan's inner workings was neat. I don't think the speech was as important as others, like the "Evil Empire" speech or the Berlin Wall speech, but it is a good speech to hang a narrative on: Reagan's foreign policy, his hopes for the future, his role in ending the Cold War.

Basically a review of Eisenhower's life and presidency through the lens of the three days surrounding Ike's farewell address to the nation (the famous "Military-Industrial Complex" speech). It's easy to read and understand, and provides a good overview of Ike and the time period. Some of the more detailed explanations of the speech and Eisenhower's inner workings was neat.

This is more than just a book specific to Reagan in Moscow. It’s a biography of Ronald Reagan and his Presidency. It is the story of the meetings with Gorbachev and his trip to Moscow. As well as the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall during the Presidencies of George Bush and Boris Yeltsin. A very interesting book.

Reagan’s fight against communism through his speeches. Culminating with his 1988 speech to the students of Moscow University while standing beneath a bust of a scowling Lenin. A good book that, unfortunately, won’t be read by those that should.

Thank you, Bret Baier, for giving us a book that tells a familiar story in a new and exciting way. While there are always new things to learn, even about a familiar story, the presentation in this book is outstanding. Once again, one finds the towering figure of Ronald Reagan and his ability to size up a situation in order to make the most of it. Not only that but how he used humor to make difficult moments more palatable. Many things contributed to the End of the Cold War but the President's position, at the middle, centered all those events. Mr. Baier has presented the story in an orderly fashion that makes this book a joy to read.

Summary: An account of the final three days of the Eisenhower presidency, focused around his farewell speech, highlighting Eisenhower’s principled leadership and contribution to the nation.

Dwight Eisenhower is the first president I remember. My recollections seem to be mostly of Eisenhower on the golf course. He didn’t hold the attention of this five-year old when he spoke. He faded quickly into the background when the dashing Jack Kennedy took office. His successors were much in the news in my growing up and adult years from the Vietnam war to Watergate and the pardon to the Iranian hostage crisis to “morning in America” to “shock and awe.” I didn’t think much about Ike as a president, probably more as the general who led us to victory in Europe in World War Two.

Bret Baier suggests that a re-assessment might be worth it. Behind the bland exterior was a president who ended the Korean War and presided over eight years free of war (if not the threat of nuclear war, which he skillfully addressed). He launched the Interstate Highway System revolutionizing travel and transport in America. He signed some of the earliest civil rights legislation (though many will criticize him for not going further) and balanced budgets. He argues he gave the right kind of presidential leadership to a nation weary of Depression and war.

Baier explores the life and contribution of this president through the window of his last three days in office beginning with his Farewell Speech, most known for his prescient warnings against the “military-industrial complex.” But first he goes back. He begins with narrating the meeting he had with recently victorious Jack Kennedy in early December, and Eisenhower’s determination to make a much better transition than Truman had in handing the presidency over to him, briefing the incoming president on everything from the policy apparatus he had put in place (which Kennedy dismantled) to world and domestic situations. Significantly, he briefed him on a covert operation in the planning stages against Castro’s Cuba involving a landing in the Bay of Pigs. He warned against moving forward unless adequate leadership was in place. Kennedy mistook this for an endorsement of the operation.

Baier then recaps Eisenhower’s life from boyhood, to military service to his rise to the Allied command, post war activities, and his entry into politics as a very apolitical Republican (much to Truman’s disappointment, perhaps accounting for the frosty reception he gave Eisenhower).

He recounts the Farewell Speech itself, which he sees as modeled after Washington’s. He explores the writing of the speech and Eisenhower’s interactions with his speechwriters. He describes a relationship with Congress that was “interdependent,” striking because Democrats were in the majority for six of the eight years of his presidency. Eisenhower regularly hosted bipartisan meetings of Congressional leadership and fostering warm personal relations with Sam Rayburn and Lyndon Johnson.

He describes the hostile global situation, particularly significant because of the chill in relations with the Soviets despite Ike’s efforts to pursue peace, recognizing the necessity of a strong deterrence. He had fought along with the Soviets against Germany, forging personal ties with General Zhukov, and hoped it could eventuate in a more durable peace, which was not to be. He goes on to discuss Ike’s frustration both with the false accusations of a “gap” in the arms race when the U.S. enjoyed superiority, and with his inability to find a way out of that race, which he recognized an exercise in futility.

Finally, he turned to the “military-industrial” complex in which peace-time defense industries and their survival threatened to co-opt American foreign policy for its own perpetuation. He warned:

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

The concluding section of Baier’s book covers the last three days. He discusses the thorough work Eisenhower did in planning the transition from his end to provide continuity and to allow the new president to be able to lead well from day one. He held a good-bye press conference. On his last day, he dealt with the huge snowfall that blanketed D.C. and prepared to greet the incoming president and for the handing off of power. He said goodbyes to the White House staff, met the Kennedys, heard Kennedy’s magnificent address, and then departed for Gettysburg.

He would meet again with Kennedy a few months later at Camp David, where he discussed the failed Bay of Pigs mission with Kennedy and helped him debrief that experience and consider how he would handle future instances of proposed actions. Eisenhower unfailingly offered his advice when sought, wrote his memoirs and enjoyed a resurgence of popularity until his health failed in 1968 and he passed in 1969.

Baier’s account seemed to me more adulatory than a balanced history. Yet he underscored several important points about Eisenhower worth consideration by our present political leaders. One was his willingness to work with the whole Congress and not just his own party. There was clarity about the common task they shared to serve the whole country, even while they differed at times how to do so. Country was always ahead of personal ambition. A second was the soldier committed to pursuing peace, perhaps truer to his Quaker roots than many thought him. He got the country out of Korea and kept it out of war, while never sacrificing a clear-eyed strong defense. And finally, he was a man of principle, not perfect but honorable. Baier’s point is that these are qualities that we should look for in all of our presidents, something I cannot dispute. The tougher question to my mind is, why don’t we?