Bush at War Reviews

• Engrossing

  
  By on 2002-11-21
  This is a facinating look at how the President, his staff, and the CIA handled the response to the 9/11 tragedy. Hopefully, people will not politicize this, and will read the book and judge the current administration's response in an fair and unbiased way.
  Personally, it gives me a great deal more confidence in the president; particularly in the way he handled the different opinions among his staff. He did not go off half-cocked in any direction, and he used his people to the utmost benefit to the country. At the same time, he was decisive and action oriented
  in getting the job done quickly and right. Our enemies were made to pay for what they did. He did not "pound sand", as he puts it, by fruitlessly wasting our resources on meaningless use of war resources.
  The cost of the war in Afganistan was amazingly small for everyone except the Taliban and al Qaida. All Americans should sleep a little better after reading this.
  
  

• If You Favor Impeachment Over Iraq, Start Here....

  
  By A1S8AJIUIO6M9K on 2003-07-12
  Edit of 22 Dec 07 to add links. We now know that Dick Cheney has hijacked the Presidency and subverted Article 1 of the Constitution for eight years and all the way back to the Ford Administration. The question begs to be asked: why on earth are the Democratic contenders ignoring the need for both Electoral Reform, and impeachment of Dick Cheney?
  
  -----
  
  As America confronts the very real probability that the Administration manipulated and distorted and fabricated intelligence in order to go to war against Iraq, and as calls rise for the impeachment of the President and the Vice President (the one naive, the other conniving), this book takes on added value--Bob Woodward has done a superb job of documenting both the "keystone cops" nature of the Administration's "strategic deliberations", and the very specific manner in which Paul Wolfowitz (too controversial to be Secretary of Defense but a power in his own right) guided the Bush team toward a war on Iraq as a "solution" to problems they could not deal with directly, to wit, the war on terrorism.
  
  There is an Alice in Wonderland quality to this book--or more properly stated, to the conversations that are quoted among the principals. Their wandering short-hand conversations, the degree to which the President is mis-led about our capabilities, the inability of the Secretary of Defense to answer a direct question, always having to go back to his office for an answer--the entire book is, as one reviewer suggests, practically a recount of a handful of recollections about scattered conversations, as if the center of the world were one room in the White House, and nothing outside those walls really mattered. It is also somewhat revisionist--as I recall from published news at the time, all of the principals wanted to delay the taking of Kabul until the spring, and it was President Putin of Russia, speaking directly to President Bush, who made the case, based on his superior intelligence sources on the ground, for how quickly Kabul would fall, leading to the US acceptance of rapid advances by the Afghan warlords. The absence of this essential and openly known fact casts doubt on the entire process of writing the book, and how information was researched and selected for inclusion.
  
  There are, however, some major gems that make a careful reading of this book very worthwhile and I list them for consideration by other readers:
  
  1) The Directorate of Intelligence does not appear as a listed player--CIA special operations rather than CIA analysis appears to have been the DCI's best card to play;
  
  2) The clandestine service, as Dewey Claridge notes in concluding his "Spy for All Seasons," died in the 1990's, with only 12 case officers in one year's class--the book misrepresents the increase from 12 to 120 as stellar--it was actually a return to the norm before a series of mediocre leaders destroyed the Directorate of Operations;
  
  3) The CIA had been "after" bin Laden for five years prior to 9-11, the DCI even "declaring war" on him, to zero effect. Worse, post 9-11 investigations determined that bin Laden had been planning the 9-11 attack for two years without any substantive hint being collected by U.S. intelligence--and at the end of the book, Rumsfeld reflects on how the three major surprises against the U.S. prior to 9-11 not only happened without U.S. intelligence detecting them, but we did not learn of them for five to thirteen years *after the fact* (page 320);
  
  4) Presidential-level communications stink--the Secretary of State could not talk to the President when flying back for seven hours from Latin America, and the National Security Advisor could not get a reliable secure connection to the President from her car right in Washington, D.C.
  
  5) The Secret Service idea of security for Presidential relatives in a time of crisis is to take them to the nearest Federal Center--the kind that got blown up in Oklahoma.
  
  6) Throughout the discussions, it was clear to the principals that the U.S. military is designed to find and destroy fixed physical targets with obvious signatures; it cannot do--it is incompetent at--finding mobile targets, whether vehicles or individuals (cf. page 174)...and of course as General Clark documented in his book, and David Halberstam repeats in his most recent tome, and as the principals learned again vis a vis Afghanistan, the U.S. Army does not do mountains.
  
  There are three remarkable aspects of this story, only one even remotely hinted at in the book: we failed to get bin Laden. The CIA went to Afghanistan with the right orders: "bin Laden dead or alive." They promptly forgot their orders and settled for spending $70M to play soldier. The two stories that are not told in this book, but are clearly apparent: 1) Russia saved the day, both for the CIA and for the Department of Defense; and 2) Saudi Arabia never came up as a serious problem that needed to be dealt with sooner than later.
  
  Finally, and this only became clear to me after the early months of 2003 when the obsession of a few people in the Administration brought the world to a crisis over Iraq, the book provides really excellent documentation of how a tiny minority, led by Paul Wolfowitz, basically pushed the President to treat Iraq as an alternative to substantive action on global terrorists networks, and the book documents how the uniformed leadership of the Pentagon clearly opposed this line of thinking that is unsupported by intelligence, either on Iraq, or on the relative threat of Iraq (not imminent) in relation to many other threats that are both more imminent and more costly if not addressed now.
  
  This is a useful book, worthy of reading, but the real story with all the details will not be known for some time. However, in the aftermath of the failed effort in Iraq, and the clear and compelling evidence that the American people and Congress were deceived about the Iraq threat, this book has an added luster, an added value, and become a "must read."
  
  Other books (see also my lists, one on Evaluating Dick Cheney, the other on The Case for Impeachment).
  Vice: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency
  Running on Empty: How the Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It
  Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders Into Insiders
  The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track (Institutions of American Democracy)
  Independents Day: Awakening the American Spirit
  Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed Are Tearing America Apart
  The Tao of Democracy: Using Co-Intelligence to Create a World That Works for All
  A Power Governments Cannot Suppress
  Democracy's Edge: Choosing to Save Our Country by Bringing Democracy to Life
  Society's Breakthrough!: Releasing Essential Wisdom and Virtue in All the People
  
  

• Theater Criticism Applied to Washington Politics

  
  By A23SB6VGGB9E8U on 2002-12-02
  I must admit my reading of Bob Woodward's Bush at War leaves me troubled.

  At a time when we are being asked to place our children in harm's way, in a part of the world that few of us have even visited, serious policy questions come to mind; questions that Bob Woodward could have appropriately addressed in a book of this nature. Rather, we are given a blow-by-blow account of the stage entrances and exits of key Washington players reconstructed from interviews and notes of the players.

  Instead of a thoughtful review of the questions raised, we are treated to theater-like criticism of the players. Instead of finishing the book with conclusions like "this is, or is not, the proper foreign policy for the world's only super power," we are left with conclusions like "Bush is focused," "Bush is in charge," "Condoleezza Rice plays an important role on the team," "Dick Cheney, a hardliner, did not appear to cooperate with the reporter" and "Donald Rumsfeld is a crafty agitator."

  These are conclusions I can draw from reading my daily newspaper. I recognize that television's pervasive influence has forced other media outlets to adapt a tabloid view of the world in order to compete for eyeballs. The type of book I want to read takes longer to prepare, if it is going to be done well. Clearly Bob Woodward and his publisher did not have that luxury. The market was hot; the holiday book selling season was upon us. Clearly a newspaper, like the Washington Post where the author serves as Assistant Managing Editor, provides the best medium to distribute this type of detailed reporting, but then again, that would cut out the book publisher.

  It is at times like this when I recognize how old fashioned I have become. Quality reporting belongs in the pages of a quality daily newspaper where it can be published in a timely fashion; books should be reserved for the policy questions raised by that reporting.

  Please excuse me while I hone the tip of my quill pen.
  
  

• Bob Woodward, Insider

  
  By on 2002-12-10
  Bob Woodward, despite the great feats he achieved of the past, is nothing now but your typical Washington insider, someone who will write an uncritical piece about someone in order to gain their confidence, and the hopes that this person will help him out in the future (i.e. more interviews). The problem with Woodward is that he panders to the Bush administration too much in this book.

  While an overall account of the 100 days following the September 11 attacks, Woodward ultimately just does that, writes an account. Many times throughout the book he speaks of his resolve to be completely objective, a statement that becomes oppressive. While as a journalist he is held to the standard of an unbiased report (which he departs from many times), Woodward glosses over too many sections of the story to make this book worthwhile.

  In helping Woodward write the book, the White House provided him with nearly fifty sets of notes from National Security Council meetings. You could say that is a good thing, but when you take into account that this is the same White House that has used "executive privelege" to hide the members of Mr. Cheney's CEO-rich Energy Board from CONGRESS. Think about it...Woodward (a reporter), recieves reports that were denied to Congress.

  The book falls short also because it focuses on the first 100 days after the attacks, before the "War on Terrorism" stalled and Iraq took center stage.

  However, the worst part about the book is that it does not cover many things that would be seen as being sensitive to the White House. Nothing of anthrax is mentioned (the fact that no one was ever arrested, and that the main suspect, Steven Hatfill, was not investigated until many months after the spores started showing up). Equally absent are John Ashcroft's mass round ups of any Arab that looked suspicious (the fact that not one terrorist was found is equally absent). The vastly important battle at Tora Bora recieves less than a page, although this is the battle where over 1000 al Qaeda (and many suspect bin Laden) escaped to Packistan. This major setback recieves very minor attention. Usually, the only setbacks shown are where they are overcome.

  Mostly, the book only focuses on what went right, something that the Bush administration is all to happy to encourage. Woodward tries to portray that he is the same Watergate guy of the 1970s, but success had taken its tool. He is now just an ordinary reporter (although a famous one), who writes what the interviewer wants him to write, and then veil it as being an investigate account.
  
  

• A political book for both sides of the spectrum!

  
  By ASOLRHBK58801 on 2002-11-20
  Love him, hate him, voted for him, voted for Gore, didn't vote in 2000, none of that matters one spec. The fact of the matter is, this candid look at our President shows that he might have acted with more bravado and character than most of us-not all of us, but certainly most of us. I suggest reading this one. It's a good and honest perspective-from a liberal-that's semi-flattering to the compassionate conservative.
  
  
• More from the Definitive Insider
  By A2Q457CES5ZUZ on 2002-11-20
  Bob Woodward forever stands where the big stories are developing. Who could forget his tip-toe excursion into former CIA director William Casey's hospital room as he stood at death's door, seeking confirmation of his knowledge of the Iran-Contra initiative.

  Woodward spirited to fame and millionaire status along with fellow Washington Post journalist Carl Bernstein with "All the President's Men," the inside story on the Watergate burglary and what transpired in its wake, a brilliant expose of the Nixon White House which resulted in Pulitzer Prizes for both journalists. They returned to the same Nixon White House scene to pen "The Final Days", detailing how the sad saga of the Nixon Administration Watergate finally played out.

  Woodward's current effort takes up in many ways where "The Commanders" left off, the story of the Gulf War and the strategy of the White House of George H.W. Bush. Some of the most fascinating passages related to the conflict between General Norman Schwarzkopf and Armed Forces Chief of Staff Colin Powell on whether or not the U.S. should send troops into Iraq to destroy the regime of Saddam Hussein. Powell held the line for Bush in explaining that the UN mandate for action did not encompass such an initiative.

  Now we are back in the same area as Bush's son seeks to undermine Saddam Hussein through threatening U.S. military action unless weapons of destruction which Bush asserts he possesses are ultimately destroyed. Powell, now in the position of Secretary of State, has been urging an international approach through the United Nations Security Council. Woodward points out that Powell was ultimately joined in that regard by National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, who also stressed the international approach.

  Woodward writes much about the Afghanistan campaign and how the U.S. supplied $70 million in cash on the barrelhead to seek assistance within that nation to repel terrorism. He frankly concludes that the answer is far from known and that one needs to stay tuned for evolving developments.
  
  

• The folks & foibles behind our Fratboy-in-Chief
  By A37AOPJUDRGQWK on 2003-06-10
  Love him or hate him, George Bush is running a unique White House. His team stays unnervingly tightly on message, fights their battles mostly in private (one gets the sneaking suspicion that public Powell- Rumsfeld disagreements are really Bush trial balloons), is far less susceptible to leaks, and effectively changes decision in the face of adversity.

  If you don't like Bush, this book will appear to be glossing over his lack of intellectual curiosity, the macho bravado of his decision-making process, and the extent to which he is a creature of the political interests that backed him in his run for office. I short, if you're a liberal and not of the "inside baseball" political junkie type, your money is best spent elsewhere as this book will just disgust you.

  If you do like Bush, you will see here our "Top Gun" president (though I thought the aircraft carrier photo op was more of a "Luke Skywalker at the end of the first Star Wars" production) making decisive decisions, backing his people fully, and creating day-by-day the conditions necessary for victory.

  If you're a political professional, student of politics, or lover of a good group dynamics exegesis, you will greatly enjoy this work for its exploration of all the inside dirt, machinations, and organizational behavior quirks of the world's most powerful office politics.

  Obviously there are limits to what even the most diligent of journalists can re-create. And this particular perception of events is surely wrong in its particulars in many places. But as a whole, it hangs together very well, and it seems to comport with the dozens of other stories about the functionings, foibles, and folks at the White House.

  There is not much in this book for the anti-Bush crowd to like. Woodward, who can hardly be called a Republican stooge, does not portray a goose-stepping Bush taking orders from a shadowy secret cabal of oil industry plutocrats while blowing his nose alternately into the Bill of Rights, the French flag, and the UN Charter.

  Woodward gets inside and gets the story. He shows Condoleeza Rice again and again playing intramural referee. He not only gets the basic Rumsfeld - Powell tensions, but also shows how each man, by virtue of his background, predilections, and character, *must* be who they are.

  No, this is not grand biography on the sacle of a Chernow or a Caro, and the writing is easy, brisk, and clear. Given the subject matter, time to produce, salience, and access, though, Woodward has scored a real hit.

  Woodward quite reasonably focuses on six principals: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Tenet & Rice. This is a simplification and we are certainly missing the slightly broader backstory in which the two dozen closest aides to those six jockey, wiggle, horsetrade and backstab as they provide, deny and spin information to their superiors. But it is a necessary and reasonable simplification that shows us the broader truths. And Woodward provides enough glimpses of these backstage battles to feel real.

  Other excellently handled vignettes include the lonely CIA operative in Afghanistan and the essential diplomacy pursued with Pakistan in the weeks after 9/11.

  Again, this book is for the political junkie or the partisan Republican only, our friends on the other side of the aisle would be best off saving their money for something less vexing.
  Anybody who has experience with small group dynamics will be fascinated by this account at that level alone. I'm certain that Woodward's skill could make a Nebraska state party convention seem just as riveting. The stakes involved amplify the importance, interest and our enjoyment, of the story.
  
  

• True meaning of "behind the scenes"
  By on 2002-11-22
  Just halfway through...Woodward had unbelievable access, I doubt there could possibly be a better account of the days just after September 11th and the buildup to the war in Afghanistan. Great so far, just hesitated on the fifth star because I'm not done yet.
  
  
• Set politics aside -- this is great reporting
  By A2P3GSFG6PI9BP on 2002-12-12
  Many of the reviews posted here say more about the reviewer's politics than they do about the book. Ignore them. What makes this work so compelling is that it provides genuine insight into the workings of our government. Rarely is such access available while an administration is still in power, and the war itself still unfolding.

  Some reviewers have criticized the book for the level of detail it provides in, for example, covering what was actually said in NSC meetings. But I think that's essential. We all know the outcome; the interesting bit is learning how and why the administration made the decisions it did. Too often history is presented as a neat little story with a bow on top. Here we see history as it is actually made: with incomplete information, conflicting views, unprepared agencies, foreign nations both helping and seeking advantage, and all the other messy details of the real world. Woodward makes all this tension and uncertainty come alive.

  I do have one complaint, though. The people who gave Woodward interviews (Bush, Powell, Rice, Tenet) consistently fared better than those who did not (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz). To some extent that's inevitable -- if you won't tell your own story, someone else will tell it for you, and less charitably. But one gets the impression that Woodward has it in for Rumsfeld. The book portrays him as consistently unprepared and uninformed, in contravention to everything else I've read about him. One wonders: has Woodward exposed Rumsfeld as a Wizard of Oz, or is he just nursing some personal grudge? It's hard to tell.

  The surprise winner in this tale is CIA Director George Tenet, who seems always to have ideas, information, and options at the ready. This is in sharp contrast to the Pentagon, which was alarmingly unprepared for action.

  Overall, the book is an incredibly gripping, engaging story of what actually happened in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
  
  

• An Insightful Account on the War with Afghanistan
  By A2FSAVCD6O1ZSG on 2003-02-23
  A detailed account of the decision making process that went into the preparation and ultimate victory of the war in Afghanistan. The book's primary focus revolves around the war planning and execution meetings for the invasion and overthrow of the Taliban.
  Woodward provides a thorough, reputable, account that which largely focuses on Rumsfeld, Powell, Tenet (CIA), Cheney, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.

  I don't recommend that political ideologues (right-wing conservatives or left-wing liberals) read this as it is too objective and does not pander to either ideology. Woodward has no axe to grind. As a political moderate, I felt the book revealed that Bush was more in tune to the decision making process than most press accounts give him credit for. It also shows a President who operates an efficient, executive style White House.

  However, it also discloses his vulnerabilities. Most significant is his lack of ability to second guess himself-what he calls making all his decisions "without regrets" and based on his "gut". His lack of deep reflection, simplistic world view, and bouts of unsubstantiated confidence will trouble many.

  The clandestine detail Woodward provides is impressive and the most revealed thus far. He details CIA involvement with the Northern Alliance and the "boots on the ground" efforts to wage a propaganda war using secret ops, food, and suitcases of money.

  Woodward appears to have had much more traditional access to the Bush White House and as a result it hasn't rattled White House insiders like many of his other books (The Choice, The Agenda, All the President's Men).

  While more extensive accounts will be written as history shakes out, this is a great initial work into the decision making process. It gives the reader insight into the personalities and styles of Bush and his "principals". I came away enlightened by the knowledge Woodward provided on the inner workings of the Bush White House.
  
  

• A Useful Tool for Understanding the War
  By A27WFYW9ZJ5DN1 on 2003-01-07
  This is Woodward's tenth book (beginning with All the President's Men with Carl Bernstein), and it is one of his better books.

  Woodward, as an editor of the Washington Post, has the access to interview virtually anyone in Washington (although it is clear both Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld gave him little or no time, and his version is biased toward Secretary of State Powell, who clearly, with his assistant Rich Armitage, gave Woodward as much time as he wanted). Thus, while Woodward's books are in a gray zone between reporting and writing history, they are often worth reading.

  Bush at War is a useful book for any citizen who is interested in how President George W. Bush operates, the manner in which he leads a team of strong men and women, and the ways in which that team, coordinated by National Security Adviser Condi Rice, interacts to produce and implement public policy.

  Woodward's biggest weakness is the degree to which he interviews and writes as though a worldwide anti-terrorist campaign could be understood from a Washington-only perspective. General Tommy Franks and the Central Command in Tampa, Florida, played a much bigger role in liberating Afghanistan and helping create new alliances than is indicated in this book. General Franks' ability to lead 47 allies in Tampa (each with their own trailer and national flag in the largest coalition in history) is one of the marvels of the last year and gets virtually no Washington coverage.

  Woodward's other failure is the classic liberal bias that a profoundly conservative President willing to stand up for America's interests has to be "educated" into more "sophisticated" (meaning liberal) internationalist views.

  Nothing in the text of the book (which shows Bush as remarkably strong and clear and capable of managing a very strong team) would indicate that there is a struggle for the President's heart and mind with Powell representing the forces of light while Cheney and Rumsfeld somehow represent the forces of darkness. Yet that is the final editorial bias of the end of the book.

  Despite these caveats this is a good book worthy of every citizen reading it to get a better understanding of the war we are in.
  
  

• Bush At Play
  By on 2002-11-27
  The very title of this book is a joke on the American people. Woodward had nothing better to write about than this penny-loafered fratboy who could only play at war in his wildest imaginations? What happened on 9/11 is not war and what George Bush is doing is not waging war. He doesn't have a clue what war is. Bush has absolutely no understanding of history, or the realities of world politics, and 9/11 has taught him nothing other than how to grimace better, and walk more like a determined ape. If the American people eat everything fed to them by this imposter of a President along with his puppeteers, and so-called journalists like Woodward, we deserve everything coming to us. The Right is merely solidifying its hold on this country and Woodward stupidly serves their interests by making a hero of this dim bulb we call President. I would prefer a poodle as President (and that's an insult to poodles). If Orwell were alive, he would tell us unequivocably that 1984 is ensconced and well in America. He would laugh at a book like this. Woodward you should be ashamed of yourself (as you laugh all the way to the bank).
  
  
• total propaganda
  By on 2002-12-03
  I"m a fan of Bob Woodward but found this book to filled with platitudes and unsubstantiated drivel, as if he had been paid by the GOP to write it. I've lost faith in this writer as a objective journalist.
  
  
• Save your cash
  By on 2002-12-07
  I used to respect Bob Woodward, but this book is star-struck, celebrity-seeking drivel. I agree with others who feel the journalist did not dig deep enough. Further, it is abundantly clear from Bush's remarks post-September 11th ("Why do they hate us?") to his actions in the region right now that he has no understanding of real foreign policy or the issues shaping the region.
  
  
• Political Fiction
  By on 2003-01-29
  This is probably what Joan Didion meant when she described the current state of journalism as Political Fiction. Bob Woodward's book reads like a novel. He has constructed a narrative with various characters cast in stereotypical roles. This book could have been written by Karl Rove. You are not going to learn anything about Bush or his regime reading this book. You will learn a great deal about Woodward and how he operates as a "journalist". He brags about all the access and documents he received from various goverment agencies. He brags about the interviews he got with everybody including Bush. You can't help but wonder why he never asked any meaningful questions. After awhile though you get it. What Woodward is giving us is Access Journalism. In exchange for access to high level officials and all the meaningless trivia they gave him Woodward shamelessly carries water for his sources. There is nothing in this book to tell us why we are going to war with Iraq. Woodward never bothered to probe. He was too grateful for the chit chat he had with Bush and others to ask any inconvenient questions or do any investigating.
  
  
• Not "Bush at War"
  By A1LEWNHOEANJIU on 2002-11-22
  Bob Woodward is lucky enough to have been allowed hundreds of interviews with White House insiders. He makes his usual great effort, nicely written, to help readers get their arms around Bush's thought processes. But, what's happening is not "Bush at War". This is Americans at war. All of us. Let not yourself be deceived by some people who work at thought control in the media. This is not Bush's war. Listen, Mr. and Mrs. America, those who desire the fall of the American "empire" not only hate your government and your way of life, they actually hate YOU, personally, and want to see you and your children DEAD. Though I enjoyed Mr. Woodward's book, it is not going to help you to understand why Bush is doing what he is doing. If you want to understand Bush's thinking (and I hope you understand that you critically need to) I have no hesitation in recommending a book that was recommended to me that is excellent and an easy read for everyone by Norman Thomas Remick, "West Point: Character Leadership Education, A Book Developed From The Readings And Writings Of Thomas Jefferson" in which West Point is metaphor for America. Bob Woodward's book is an excellent piece of journalism. Be sure to read it. But also read the Remick book if you want to wrap your arms around our President's thought processes and philosophy.
  
  
• False advertising?
  By AKJEVX1D2RRLD on 2002-11-22
  Bob Woodward says he interviewed over 100 people for this book. But it reads as if the narrative is constructed solely from the minutes of various National Security Council meetings he obtained. That is no mean feat. But this book is not about "Bush AT War": it is about George Bush getting READY for war -- in disjointed councils during which only Colin Powell, Condelezza Rice, and George Tenet ever offered the President any substantive advice. Moreover, Woodward barely mentions the feats of the Air Force Special Tactics men and teams from the 5th Special Forces Group which really liberated Afghanistan in only 90 days -- ten months before Woodward finished his book.
  
  
• Standard, Uncritical Kid-Glove Treatment of Bush....
  By A2GXIVTPRRO1VJ on 2002-11-24
  This book was a complete disappointment -- although I don't know why I should have expected anything else. Woodward offers NO real investigation, NO real depth, and NO real insight into an administration that has so diligently shrouded itself in secrecy (while so effectively engaging in new heights of deception).

  It doesn't surprise me in the least that Woodward was given full access to the Whitehouse, since this book offers little beyond the unsubstantive "rah-rah" pro-Bush cheerleading that the mainstream media has been engaging in since Bush took office (Ari Fleisher and his minions in the Whitehouse Press office could have written this book themselves!). Although Woodward is certainly a talented writer, this book is little more than pro-Bush P.R. and spin. Uncritical fans of George W. Bush will love this little "novel"; others may want to look elswhere for a more substantive and realistic glimpse into the methods and motivations of the current president (I recommend Molly Ivin's SHRUB -- a book that every truly patriotic American ought to read).
  
  

• An Objective Account Executive Action
  By A1ZV8H4NIU65PM on 2002-12-12
  Woodward' account of the post 9/11 crisis, the road to war with Afghanistan and an eventual commentary on an impending Iraq conflict is fluid and informative. For those skeptical of GW Bush, his executive ablities and whether he is "up to the task" this book provides an unbias documentary of the inner functions of the president and his war cabinet. It covers in depth daily NSC meetings, previous undisclosed information, political personalities, relationships, and the overall tone and focus of the White House on its cautious road to war. What I found most surprising was Bush's careful expression and delegation of proper and effective authority; probably his most valuable trait. And secondly the non-dominance of "Hawks" Rumsfeld and Cheney, and the complete absence of Karl Rove from any War Council proceedings. While not a riveting page turner, the book is a must for political junkees, for anyone interested in the active function of the executive branch in time of crisis, and for anyone with previous doubts on Bush' ability to lead effectively.
  
  
• Bush redux
  By A2ATT6LVGEAC5B on 2003-01-21
  This book is a P. R. job in behalf of the President that I would not have expected from the revered journalist Bob Woodward. Bush, he of the steely look and the thin lips, is the supreme leader. After all, he himself keeps mentioning that he is the Commander in Chief and the President; therefore he can say anything he wants to and does not have to explain anything. The bad guys in this piece are Rumsfeld and Cheney, who follow their own agenda ignoring Powell and Rice. Tenet is another bad boy.

  After September 11, it was agreed that something drastic and highly visible had to be done immediately. "I want bin Laden, dead or alive", said the President. But how do you bomb the dickens out of a single person? A larger target was needed. How about the al Qaeda? Still not large and compact enough for a bombing campaign. OK - so let's go after the Taliban. They could not prove any connection to 9/11, but they presented a chance to mess up a whole country. Besides, they were those uncouth people who would not let their women lacquer their fingernails (Laura Bush).

  It took a whole month to get even the semblance of anything going in Afghanistan. Even before 9/11, the CIA was given up to $200 million to pay off the Alliance. But now the real moneys hit the ground in stacks of $100 bills. Tenet put the cost at $ 1 billion. "Whatever it takes", said the President. At the same time Ashcroft declared that terror suspects would be dealt with, if necessary without a trial. Cofer Black from the CIA pointed out that people were going to die, some of them Americans. "That's war", Bush said. Powell saw that Bush was getting tired of talking; he wanted to kill someone. "I am a loving guy", he said. He opened every cabinet meeting with a prayer.

  Tenet now asked that the CIA be given special power to use all instruments ever thought of, including deadly force. He wanted to start liaison with questionable intelligence services, including rogue states such as Libya and Syria. There would be ruthless torture and worse. Bush said he understood.

  Bush did not care for allies. He said "We may be the only ones left. That's OK with me. We are America". Ashcroft requested, in behalf of the FBI, special authority to wiretap. A Special Operations officer submitted a memo on the poisoning of food supplies in Afghanistan. They also started to build a case to show that al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks. Ashcroft wanted a national neighborhood watch system.

  Bush to New York business leaders: "I truly believe that out of this will come order in the world - real progressw to peace in the Middle East, stability with oil-producing regions.

  "We need a victory", said Bush.

  "I am not a textbook player. I am a gut player."

  So assets were inserted and they tried to get boots on the ground. Collateral damage is accepted. They started to incentivize and Americanize the war effort. A year later, the Taliban are regrouping. General Franks thinks that is good: "I have more targets to hit".

  Most of all, it is amazing to see how Bush completely lost control over his cabinet members. Rumsfeld does whatever he feels like doing, including setting up his own intelligence force. Meanwhile, Tenet builds up his own army- called paramilitary - and illegally assassinates people in Yemen with armed Predator drones. Ashcroft locks up hundreds of Muslims throughout the US without charge, lawyers or habeas corpus. Wolfowitz locks up hundreds of Afghans in Cuba under inhuman conditions.

  What is our fearless leader up to? At the first sign of trouble and playing it no doubt from the gut, he hops on his plane and disappears into Nebraska. And Cheney? He disappears into bunkers of undisclosed locations, where he cannot be exfiltrated. On his first visit to New York, Bush had a motorcade of 55 cars. During the Genoa summit he stayed away from the world's leaders on a ship. An during the Prague summit, large parts of the city and the access roads were closed, while F-115 and F-116 circled overhead.

  A President and Commander-in-Chief who is afraid of his own people and is willing to abrogate their constitutional rights. Whos purpose in life is the waging of war, no matter where or how.
  
  

• Total B.S.
  By A33F7IQIV05VGS on 2004-03-15
  I found this book to be so biased and one sided, its not even funny! How can people support this ididot for re-election? Who in their right, common sense mind would want to re-elect this hardliner hawk? Bush and his cronies are guilty of illegally invading Iraq and causing the deaths of many american soliders as well as many innoncent iraq people. Why doesn't bush and his zombies go and fight on the front lines? Instead of sending young soldiers to fight his dirty war!
  
  
• Truth Becomes More Obscure Everyday
  By A3L8P43B0FNV9Q on 2002-11-24
  It pains me to see this book billed at the "inside truth" written be an "outsider/liberal."

  Over the years since his Watergate score, Woodward has morphed from investigative journalist to consumate insider. His access here was vetted by Karl Rove, Andrew Card, Ken Mehlman -- the henchmen inner circle. These people work in secret, allow no real press access (just ask the reporters), and politicize every act and statement that comes out of the White House, i.e. everything is a calculation to make Bush look good and to stay in power.

  So here comes Woodward, with his rep and Washington Post connection, the perfect guy to give Bush statue with doubter and critics from the center/left. The whole thing is a "set up" calculated to sell Bush, and at the same time give Woodward a a big book, bucks, and a new basis for getting his face on TV.

  Is it the truth? Woodward wouldn't get within shouting distance of Bush or any other "insider" interviewed if he was a free thinker and truthteller. No, he gets in because
  he's "reliable", "they" can depend on him. Is Woodward a liberal? Hell no. He's pure establishment and self-serving to boot.

  Sure, some of the stuff is interesting. And the book is a decent read. But in the end, it's just a piece of establishment propaganda. Woodward is just another of the "insiders" who take good care of each other and pipe out the "newspeak" calculated to keep us feeling alright. To my mind, the "Evil One" here (since we're supposed to think like this nowadays) is Woodward -- a coy boy he is indeed, a player for sure, but when it comes to reality, he leaves us in the dark.
  
  

• Recipe: some of the story, with seasoning for a better taste
  By A2P4JR4BNBS9RW on 2002-12-11
  Seasoning disguises the true state of the sometimes rotten ingredients. Well worth reading BUT keep in mind that with this highly secretive administration Woodward has made a smooth transition from 'investigative journalist' of Nixon to "Court historian" for Bush. Courts tend to surround themselves only with those who generally agree and to permit only chroniclers who do so as well. Sadly, it may have been necessary to get even this version of the story.
  
  
• Powell v Rumsfeld v Rice v CIA
  By on 2002-12-24
  To my surprise Bob Woodward has brought a fresh angle to perhaps the most reported event of our times. The angle is the variety of viewpoints, personalities and management styles among the President's senior advisory group. If you think Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were calling the shots on US retaliatory policy, I suspect Woodward's work will change your mind. CIA chief George Tennent brought Bush what he wanted--a plan that could be implemented quickly and forcefully. Rumsfeld and the DOD were talking in terms of months while Bush was thinking in terms of days. Condoleeza Rice's role (and influence with the boss) was greater than I had thought. Bob Woodward seems to have sources that no one else has, plus an ability to intersperse historical perspective on the players in question. The George Bush in "Bush At War" bears no resemblence to the GWB of Saturday Night Live. The real Bush took charge, knew what he wanted to do and did it. Somewhat to my surprise I might add. This book is not a rehash; it provides a view into the White House inner circle that you won't get on the evening news or CNN.
  
  
• Bob Woodward has given up.
  By A2G6TJSX2TWWRD on 2003-08-02
  Bush at War is not what you're looking for. If you want to know about how much Bush claims to bench-press, or, you're interested in Bush eating a hamburger, then read this book. If
  you're interested in 9-11, avoid it.
  
  Using only White House sources, Bob Woodward depends on `deep' access to government officials, and as a result, cannot either fact-check, or scrutinize the story told to him - something all journalists must do.
  
  Woodward's reporting, when not uselessly asinine, fails to scratch the surface of 9-11. He makes sure to note that George Tenent and Richard Armitage met head Pakistani intelligence officials before and after 9-11, but does not note that the same official, Gen. Ahmad, who was visiting the White House from Sept 4th to 13th , sent Mohammed Atta ..... - a story reported in The Times of India, Oct.11, 2001, and confirmed by the FBI. The same guy who paid for 9-11, through his Inter Service Intelligence, is being supported by the White House ( The US government has always supported the ISI, and by extension, the Taliban, during the Soviet/Afghani war of the 80s; and a Los Angeles Times article from May 22, 2001, titled: "Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban", has Colin Powell sending the Taliban $43million.) Woodward doesn't think that's interesting enough to note in his book.
  
  Bob notes that Donald Rumsfeld debated about sending fighter-jets to escort Air Force One on Sept 13th; but does not mention that on 9-11, violating standard operating procedure, fighter-jets from Andrews Air Force Base (the home of Air Force One, and ten miles from the Pentagon) were not scrambled (sent to assess the hijacked plane) for over 30 minutes! Fighter-jets are scambled routinely, and have been since 1976, every time a plane deviates 15degrees from flight path, loses transponder contact, or loses radio contact, according to FAA manuals. On 9-11, a pizza delivery driver is faster than combat-ready fighter-jets, and Woodward doesn't even mention it?
  
  Bob claims that the US Military was unprepared to attack Afghanistan, but does not note that operations "Bright Star" and "Swift Sword" had placed troops in the area, and had been
  planned 4 years prior -- many of those details were printed in the UK paper, the Guardian, but I'm running out of room, so just check out the last paragraph for more info.
  
  Bob missed all over those facts, in the FIRST FOUR CHAPTERS. The rest doesn't get any better.
  
  This book is garbage. Bob Woodward should be ashamed. If you're seriously interested pursuing this topic, start by viewing "Aftermath: Unanswered Questions From 9-11", 3/5 of which can be viewed online. Type the title of the film into Google.com. After viewing the film, either pick up a copy of the DVD (featuring 90minutes of extras), or/and research the people
  featured in the documentary.
  
  
• Even puff-pieces can serve history
  By ARKI6URDG0MEQ on 2004-04-01
  Thank goodness for this book, as it eloquently corroborates Richard Clarke's assertions that prior to 9/11, al-qaeda was not on Bush's radar, let alone his priority list. Despite fervent daily briefings from CIA director Tenet, and a strong warning from the outgoing Clinton administration, Bush himself admits in this book that he ignored the danger signs. Woodward must be a far-sighted genius, cleverly lulling an unsuspecting Bush into admitting it.

  Okay, actually neither Woodward or Bush had any idea at the time the quotes in this book would come back to haunt the administration, but there you have it. I understand that future printings of this book will have a title modification: "Bush (was a failure) At War." Proof that even puff-pieces like this have their purpose to history.
  
  

• Bush at War in Afghanistan
  By A3399PIYZXPD0G on 2004-04-02
  I picked up Bob Woodward's "Bush at War" when I was looking for an objective telling of how Bush got into and approached the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. There are too many partisan accounts that say Bush is all right or all wrong and I was looking for less politics and more information. This book provides that in great and sometimes tedious detail.

  This book is focused on the period from just before 9-11-01 to prior to the Bush administration's going to war in Iraq, but after the Congress gave the Bush administration the authority to unilaterally do what it felt was required there. The book ends with Bush awaiting UN enforcement of the many Iraq-related resolutions. This is 90% focused on Afghanistan, NOT IRAQ.

  Richard Clarke's highly critical book on Bush and his alleged lack of attention to terrorism prior to 9/11 came out while I was reading this book Surprisingly enough, Clarke is not mentioned at all in the Bush at War book in spite of his being the head of the Counter-Terrorism office in the White House.

  The first quarter of "Bush at War" did a nice job of taking me back to the emotional shock of the Trade Tower attacks and the virtually universal feeling in America of patriotism and joining together. The remainder of the story describes in repetitive detail the frequent meetings among the White House principals, (with and without Bush) regarding what kind of response was appropriate, what was achievable and when could it be done. Logistically they found it difficult to reopen old intelligence contacts in Afghanistan and get men and material over there. I was surprised out how difficult the logistics are in fighting a war all the way around the world. Woodward does not clear up the question of whether Bush was on point regarding terrorism prior to 9/11 but makes it clear that it was taken very seriously after, to the point where the subject honed Bush's vision of what he wants to accomplish with his Presidency.

  Some key points from the book.

  *Iraq is discussed in the White House early on after 9/11 but is not the main topic, Al-Quada is and the Taliban's support of them. The Taliban is not even the prime initial target for retaliation; in fact they are offered an out by turning over Bin Laden and the rest of the leadership.

  *This book does not make it clear that an Iraq invasion was on the Bush agenda upon inauguration. However, Rumsfeld suggests possibly attacking Iraq or somewhere in the Far East to demonstrate the far reach of the US military and to scare the terrorists, especially when it becomes clear that the military had no initial plan or assets to exploit in Afghanistan. No one else went for that idea.

  *Bush comes off as decisive, inclusive and even open-minded during the discussion phases. He is heavily involved in the "you are for us, or you are against us" position on terrorism that came out early after 9/11. He is involved in tactical discussions and keeps the team focused and confident.

  *Cheney and Rumsfeld are the uber-hawks, pushing the ultimately prevailing position that the possibility of a devastating second terrorist attack against the US, either domestically or internationally, required the adoption of the declared preemption policy. They are the prime proponents behind the decision to eventually invade Iraq.

  * Powell was not as much a part of the real inner circle as Cheney and Rumsfeld were (and are still). Powell is more independent and less trusted.

  This is more similar to an in-depth newspaper piece than a novel in terms of readability. Woodward could have described the discussions leading to policy formulation and then used hindsight to report where they were right or wrong. I would have liked more conclusions rather than just fact reporting. Another difficulty was keeping track of the passage of time. A timeline running along the top of the pages would have been helpful in this type of account. As it was I frequently had to flip around to reconfirm where I was in the calendar of events.

  Bottom line, "Bush at War" is a well researched book with good sources clearly evident, that is not pushing a political agenda. He needs to do another one focused on Bush in Iraq.
  
  

• Unbelievingly Disappointing
  By on 2002-12-09
  This was more like 400-pages of transcripts, recordings, and notes which were drier than a piece of beef jerky. It seemed as though this talented writer was exorted to write this book. Where is the passion? Where are the personal views on how this "War" is being handled? I've read 104 pages of redundancy and am critically debating on suffering through another 300 pages. I must say though, the actual book itself, is aestheticly pleasing. I guess that is why they say not to judge a book by its cover.
  
  
• A Good Place to Start
  By A2MFUK442KQAPQ on 2002-12-07
  Bush at War is an insightful overview of the Bush administration's initial prosecution of war against Afghanistan-based Islamic terrorists who attacked the United States on 9-11-2001. It focuses on how the most senior government officials (President, VP, Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenent, etc.) worked as a team during the last three months of 2001 to prioritize, formulate and conduct the successful military campaign to disrupt Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda stronghold. Controversial U.S. domestic responses (indefinite detention of suspects, the unsolved anthrax attacks, airline security efforts, etc.) are barely mentioned.

  Even though the events covered in Bush at War occurred barely one year ago, we lose track of perspective in our "news"-saturated culture. It's amazing to recall how much happened, and has already been mostly forgotten, in such a short time.

  The most informative part of the book is the process by which senior government officials cooperatively (more so the initial months than, according to media reports, subsequently) addressed an unanticipated event. The most surprising part is how truly unanticipated the attack was and how unprepared for response the U.S. military was. Former Clinton administration officials, from Clinton himself on down, assert they were actively engaged in pursuit of bin Laden/al Qaeda subsequent to the Nairobi and USS Cole attacks. Yet as of 9-11 the Central Command apparently had ABSOLUTELY NO contingency plans for attacking al Qaeda strongholds in Afghanistan other than more wimpy Clintonesque Tomahawk missile strikes on empty training camps (which President Bush wisely refused to do). Some American forces were ready to go against al Qaeda strongholds in just a few days but the vaunted defense planners had no contingency arrangements for temporary air bases in the region; this turned out to be the primary delay in mounting a military response. Also surprising, in light of more recent events, is the President's initial insistence, despite pressure from certain officials, on not getting sidetracked by Iraq (so much so that he cancelled a previously approved strike against Iraqi missile sites that had fired on U.S. aircraft in order to avoid the impression Iraq was being attacked in response to 9-11).

  Bush at War is based on extensive interviews with the principals and access to contemporaneous notes of then-secret meetings. Famed Washington Post investigative reporter Woodward is not known for being soft on government officials. Therefore, the highly positive picture of the President's and senior officials' performance in the initial weeks of the United States' escalated conflict with militant Islam is reassuring. Despite some media portrayals, President Bush comes across as a very competent leader.

  I recommend this book as a starting point for more detailed reading on what has, and has not, been accomplished in the non-Islamic world's response to the militant Islamic forces that seek to destroy or contain non-Islamic institutions through out the world.
  
  

• An unbiased report on what really happened.
  By AMDV0A6CKWQAP on 2003-06-15
  Once again Bob Woodward has written an unbiased book which tells you what really happened. And you learn some fascinating details such as "The realities at the beginning of the 21st century were two: the possibility of another massive, surprise terrorist attack similar to September 11, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction - biological, chemical or nuclear. Should the two converge in the hands of terrorists or a rogue state, the United States could be attacked and tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of people could be killed. In addition, the president and his team had found that protecting and sealing the U.S. homeland was basically impossible. Even with heightened security and the national terrorist alerts, the country was only marginally safer."

  This one quote explains why we went to war with Afghanistan, Iraq, and soon other countries as well. As I write this, the administration is doing the initial steps in preparing for war with North Korea. (Repositioning our troops, building up alliances, etc.)

  I greatly prefer this unbiased book over biased books such as "The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush" by David Frum which is an obviously pro-Bush book.
  
  

• Plan of Attack
• State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III
• The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008
• Hidden Iran: Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic
• Military Innovation in the Interwar Period