If what is reported in this book is true, not just about Geithner but Summers and Rahm and others in the administration, it would help to explain some of what seemed to be Obama's incomprehensible policy decisions.
The book is titled
"Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and The Education of A President," and the author spoke to over 200 people, including the President, Geithner, and other top officials in the Government.
Ron Suskind Book 'Confidence Men': Tim Geithner Ignored Obama Order On Banks 
The book states Geithner and the Treasury Department ignored a March 2009 order to consider dissolving banking giant Citigroup while continuing stress tests on banks, which were burdened with toxic mortgage assets.
In the book, Obama does not deny Suskind's account, but does not reveal what he told Geithner when he found out. "Agitated may be too strong a word," Suskind quotes Obama as saying. Obama says later in the book that he was trying to be decisive but "the speed with which the bureaucracy could exercise my decision was slower than I wanted."
Geithner says he doesn't remember the President being angry at him about the Citigroup issue. He denies allegations in WH documents which record that the Treasury Dept. was 'slow to enact the president's plans' and stated
I don't slow-walk the president on anythingThe president wanted his Treasury Dept to work on ways to dissolve Citigroup, but no plan was ever developed, according to Susskind. It's interesting too because Obama has been criticized strongly for being too easy on the Banks. Pretty important information and raises the question 'why is Geithner still there'?
And then there's
Summers:
Larry Summers, the former White House economic adviser, is quoted as lamenting that he and others felt "home alone" and that mistakes made under Obama would not have happened under President Clinton, for whom Summers also served. Interviewed by Suskind, Summers initially denied making such comments, then acknowledged them, saying he was frustrated at having "five issues" of major importance to deal with at once and not "five times as many" officials to handle them.
So, it appears these Wall St. guys were undermining the President and seemed to not respect him at all. Elitist, arrogant Wall St. know-it-alls, and so wrong about everything as is tragically apparent. They also did not respect the American People who elected this president to end their failed policies.
And on
Rahm Emanuel:
The book says one of Obama's top advisers, former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, was not the president's first choice for the position. According to Suskind, Emanuel's name was not even on the initial short list, which included White House aide Pete Rouse.
Very interesting. It seems that, according to Susskind, Obama did not actually want many of the people he ended up with. That changes my view of him somewhat, especially as I read this paragraph:
"The Citbank incident, and others like it, reflected a more pernicious and personal dilemma emerging from inside the administration: that the young president's authority was being systematically undermined or hedged by his seasoned advisers," Suskind writes.

This reminds of something I read this week about President Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs incident. I believe it was from Jackie Kennedy's tapes, or a commentary on them. Kennedy was devastated by that incident, and according to Jackie he cried for the men who were killed and captured.
But it was an early lesson that he could not trust some of the people he was surrounded by and he felt he had been tricked into signing off on it by the CIA assuming it was well planned before he got there. Afterwards, he made changes to his cabinet as he did not trust many of them. It was then that he brought in his brother Robert who he trusted implicitly.
Both young presidents. Was Obama also tricked into some of the decisions he made? Could be and would explain a lot, but he needs to FIRE THEM NOW if that is the case.