Plan of Attack Reviews

• A private war

  
  By AYCJSA9HR7TKO on 2004-04-19
  Woodward's new book, based on interviews with 75 White House insiders--including the President--is a chilling example of what happens when the Chief Executive of the most powerful country in the world decides he's going to war--or, as Condoleezze Rice puts it, engages in "coercive diplomacy."

  According to Woodward, Bush decided as early as November 2001 to wage war against Iraq, and diverted several hundred millions of dollars from the Congressional Afghanistan campaign appropriation to develop war plans. None of the inner circle except Rice was informed of the President's plans. He told Woodward that he didn't feel the need to discuss the plans because he knew his people were on board. Desperate for a way to sell the war to the American public, Bush pressed George Tenet for assurances that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Tenet gave the thumbs-up (himself, no doubt, feeling pressure to provide the answer Bush wanted), and the war was just a matter of time. Whenever counterevidence to Tenet's insistence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction showed up--as with Hans Blix's UN reports--senior advisors to the President accused the authors of the reports of deliberate deception.

  One of the surprising themes in Woodward's book is just how intent George Bush was on waging war with Iraq. The story on the street, of course, is that Bush was manipulated into war by his senior advisors. But if Woodward is correct, Bush played this one himself. He was undoubtedly influenced by people like Cheny and Rumsfeld, but he made the decision himself. He wanted a war, and he got it.

  This book deserves to be read alongside other recent ones: John Dean's _Worse than Watergate, for example, or Ron Suskind's _Price of Loyalty_. Thought the imperial presidency died with Richard Nixon's resignation? Think again.
  
  

• Straight from the "Horse"

  
  By on 2004-04-19
  As ever, Bob Woodward has put together an incredibly cohesive book, stuffed to the gills with facts and words directly from Bush and "all the president's men." The reporter in Bob Woodward really comes out here because he lays out the facts as he was told them by the President himself and the facts are very eye-opening. In my opinion, he is restrained in putting forth his own conclusions or opinions. I found it to be just fantastic and interesting, and the facts can be interpreted to suit both sides of the aisle. Read it!
  
  

• Sad Day for America

  
  By on 2004-04-20
  As a Conservative Republican, I cannot let ideology get in the way of the clear headed fact that G.W. Bush is the most embarassing, shameful, and decietful President in my lifetime (I'm 59). Secrecy does not bode well in a democratic republic. This book covers the deceit leading up to the Iraq war, an un-called for war, and a war that put U.S. Soldiers in harms way, needlessly. All the while the Bush administration was cutting military pay--and losing ground in the war on terror. Shame on them.
  
  

• From Watergate to Iraqgate

  
  By on 2004-04-20
  From Watergate to Iraqgate.

  Bob Woodward, who along with fellow journalist Carl Bernstein investigated the Watergate break-in and first cracked the Watergate scandal is poised to bring down the Bush administration in this fact filled book about the secret plans to invade Iraq.

  Much of this information backs up Richard Clarke's recent book which said that Bush was intent of invading Iraq early on in his administration and that Sept 11 was just a convenient excuse for war.

  All ready the right wing smear machine is trying to discredit Woodward. But the man is a savvy Washington insider who made sure he had the goods before he nailed his prey.

  A must read.
  
  

• worth reading

  
  By on 2004-04-25
  I wanted to see the reviews here at Amazon before posting my own comments, but now I have to comment on some of these posts.

  It seems that if you are a die-hard supporter of president Bush you may feel conflicted about Mr. Woodward's revelations. On the one hand, he is not another Bush-hater out to attack the president or his disatrous Iraq policy, as so many have in the past few months have. On the other hand, there is information in the book that make our president look out-of-touch, ignorant, arrogant, strange and weird and, yes, even dumb. But, overall, this is not an unsympathetic view of the president.

  Here you have some Bush admirers who see it as a "fair and balanced" book, an honest book that tells the truth and shows us what a great guy the prez is, EXCEPT for those parts where Mr. Woodward "lies", (i.e. when facts make the president look bad). Apparently, you can conveniently pick and choose the parts where Woodward is the well-respected journalist giving us the truth about the Bush administration, and the parts where he is just a lying liberal distorting the facts and making poor Dubya look bad.

  But we know that Mr. Woodward is not a liberal, or even a Democrat, and that he has in the past written sympathetically about Mr. Bush. And this is, for the most part, or maybe in comparaison to recent books about the Bush administration, a sympathetic view, which is probably why the White House seems to be promoting it. But for those who read the book carefully and with an open mind, there is plenty here about the Bushies to worry about and it may be why Rush Limbaugh has decided that this is, after all, an anti-Bush book. Limbaugh may have burned some brain cells with those drugs but he is still a smart man and knows that if you learn some facts about Bush and his administration, as presented in this book -- not the biased, distorted propaganda he and others promote -- you are going to worry.

  Take the fact that the president didn't see it necessary to discuss or share his plans for Iraq with his (earthly) father, president Bush Sr. - someone who had similar experience on the subject and might have given him, hopefully, better advice that the higher source he consulted - that seems totally unbelievable. Also, the fact that a Saudi official was informed about the plans to invade Iraq before our Secretary of State has to give us pause (what EXACTLY is the connection between this administration and the Saudis?). But even more amazing is the revelation that, apparently, it was not the president who made the final decision to go to war, but THE VICE_PRESIDENT! It may explain why Mr. Bush will only testify to the 9-11 commission with Mr. Cheney in the same room.

  Interestingly, the book also tells us that it was not so much the president, but the vice-president who was feverishly obsessed with Iraq and determined to go after Saddam. So, Mr. Chenney, who didn't see it necessary to serve his country in combat as a young man was more than willing to send young men and women to fight his war in Iraq. Unfortunately, the reason behind this is something Mr. Woodward does not explain. He leaves perhaps the most important question unanswered: Why, really, did these people take us into this, obvioulsly poorly planned, war? Why the rush to get Saddam? No one has yet explained that too convincingly.

  Overall, this an informative and well-written book, even if it leaves you with some unanswered questions.
  
  

• Once Again, A War President Revealed!
  By ALR35EFI69S5R on 2004-04-20
  One reason Bob Woodward is such a superb journalist is that he has a talent for developing and maintaining an incredible network of primary sources. Better than anyone else I can think of, Woodward manages to gain a wealth of insight from people who are both `in the know' and are willing to talk to him in damning detail about it. In this particular case, the information is devastating; Woodward both confirms what a flurry of other recent books about President Bush and his staff have alleged, that they were obsessed with invading and conquering Iraq from the very beginning of the administration, that they both knowingly exaggerated and even prevaricated about evidence and deliberately attempted to make spurious connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda in order to support their goals and objectives, and that there is a deep political and even cultural divide among some of the principals within the administration concerning our foreign policy.

  Of course, the two principal antagonists other than the President himself are Vice President Dick Cheney, depicted here as a zealot in search of some kind of hopped-up moral justice he wants to visit against the middle east in general and Iraq in particular, and Colin Powell, a man who seems to know better that to go along with this con-game, but lacking the resident moral courage to stand up and cry wolf. The book is astonishing in its first-person indictment of the crony corruption and confusion resident both within and without the halls of the West Wing; Tommy Franks is pressured to publicly lie about not having been given instructions to develop a Iraqi war plan in the Spring of 2002 when Rumsfeld had done so on orders from the President the previous fall; Cheney gave a top secret briefing to Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia giving specifics of that war plan in January 2003 even before Colin Powell was informed the decision to go to war had been made, even though release of such information to foreign nationals is a serious violation of federal law; Bush provocatively lied to the public in his 2003 State Of The Union message that he was still trying to use the United Nations to find a solution when he had already decided to go to war, etc. Anyone want to consider whether any or all of these acts were impeachable offenses?

  Thus, perhaps the most telling aspect to Woodward's new book is the way in which this ultimate insider serves to help flesh out the intimate characteristics of many of the President's principal players, the interaction among them, and how these various cliques and petty jealousies fuel both how and what decisions as do get made, and why they wind up as radical as they often are. It also provides a wealth of insights into the President and his personality, as well. Far from being the resolute loner, the rugged individualist making solitary decisions in the splendid isolation of his uniquely driven intellect, the current occupant of the White House seems to be a man who. On the one hand seems driven by a form of messianic belief in his own mission in life, and on the other hand, make decisions about going to war based nearly exclusively on what other "experts" think is best. Bush comes across as either intellectually unable or psychologically unwilling to make tough decisions without deferring to others, who relies overmuch on the opinions and guidance of others such as Dick Cheney and Karl Rove in making tough decisions.

  In essence, Mr., Bush seems more like a character actor playing out his scripted part by saying his lines and trying not to stumble into the furniture. Yet, often his John Wayne impersonation draws thin, and there are moments when one catches a glimpse of his pancake makeup, when we can observe just how soft, unaccomplished and dependent this supposed he-man is. He seems, to use an old western expression, much more like a five-dollar horse with a hundred dollar saddle, someone born to privilege, so self-assured that he thinks all that is required of him is convey reassuring public images while others do all the heavy lifting. Perhaps not all that much has changed all that much from his days as a MBA student at the Harvard Business School, when according to other students, he sat aimlessly in the back of classes wearing his Air National Guard leather flight jacket while quietly expectorating his tobacco chew into a paper cup. Combine this persona with a apparent case of self-ordained messianic zeal, and what you have is the current occupant of the White House.

  What one also discovers herein is a plethora of particulars describing the critical political and cultural divides among the various factions within the Bush regime; and the reader begins to appreciate the degree to which what is going on here is really much more of a shadow presidency for Dick Cheney than anyone had previously appreciated. Yet when one considers the evidence, such a conclusion is quite logical, given such insights into Bush as the fact that he is neither an impressive intellect nor a voracious reader. What he does like to do is jog, follow sports on TV, do manual chores around the ranch, and make sure he keeps regular hours. On the day he received the now famous 6 August 2001 PDB alerting him to the Al Qaeda threat to the continental United States, Mr. Bush was in the midst of the longest single vacation any president had ever taken, and he had been in office only seven months at that point. Moreover, at the conclusion of the briefing, he dismissed the briefing team without taking any action about the terrorist threat, donned his white ten gallon Stetson, and disappeared in his Ford F-350 Super Duty truck to go bass fishing for the rest of the day. So much for keeping your eye on the ball! Reading the book left me personally musing as to just how much Mr. Bush resembles Chauncy Gardener, the fictional Peter Sellers character in "Being There". To the extent the comparison is accurate, "Dubya" provides us all with a frightening look at just how possible it is for someone so insular, intellectually limited, and self absorbed, a man so singularly unsuited for public office to actually become President of the United States. This is, then, indeed a book well worth reading. Enjoy!
  
  

• No Roadmap
  By AKZRGL30PH9OU on 2004-05-16
  The problem I had with this book is that it was so hard to get a grasp on the whole thing.

  There's no theme, no purpose, no roadmap. The book is just a chronological account of the political, military, and diplomatic maneuverings leading up to the war in Iraq.

  There are no chapter names, no nifty timeline diagrams, not even splitting the book into, say, Part I (date range), Part II (date range), and Part III (date range), which might have helped. Reading it was like being immersed in a quagmire. Were I to reread this book, I'd be taking notes and making diagrams.

  In an effort to be nonbiased, Mr. Woodward has sacrificed clarity. In an effort to be comprehensive, he has sacrificed coherence. This is not necessarily a bad thing. On the other hand, I can see how it would be easy for people to read through this book and pick out the things that support their preconceived notions, and then disregard everything else.

  The main reason I wanted to read this book was to get a better understanding of the motivations of the Bush Administration in going to war. I still don't understand it. I saw a lot of political and diplomatic maneuvering in trying to figure out ways to make the case for the war, but not the underlying motivation.
  
  

• Bush ensures my generation has a Vietnam of our own
  By A1OBPHRXHZF8P6 on 2004-04-20
  Like many other individuals with a working brain, I was predisposed to hate George W. Bush. My Texas residency (and previous years of state required Texas Goverment/History courses) meant that I had seen the worst of Bush up close...or so I thought.

  Even when I previously said Bush was plotting to destroy the world with his oil industry buddies (who non-coincidentally are also daddy's friends), part of me believed this was a joke. Surely, the American people (the Congress included) would prevent such extremisim from acutually occuring in any context?

  9/11 was tragic, but the surealism quickly surounding the event aftermath makes Joe McCarthy's anti-communist crusade look like a fine tuned amusement park ride for the kiddos. Exploiting the national sentiment, Bush began to colonize Iraq (replete with Colonial Governor Bremmer) and honestly cannot figure out why the people of Iraq are not excited about trading in one ruthless dictator for another.

  Once again living up to his reputation as America's (if not one of the world's) best investigative journalists, Woodward explains why the president remains eager to talk about weapons of mass destruction despite the mountains of fabricated evidence now uncovered. Bush is so welded to the idea of conquering Iraq at all costs that he is even ignoring a growing intra-party dissent which is usually unheard of except in times of extreme turmoil (LBJ and Vietnam, Nixon and Watergate) which would otherwise spell defeat for both the sitting president and their party.

  Bush's actions folks, are an impeachable and convictable offense.

  This is also the reason why Bush is so eager to renew the Patriot Act despite (again) Congress's rapid unease with supposedly anti-terrorist legislation. Congress and the American people fear (and rightly so) that the broad powers of this act give Bush free mandate to lash out at whatever he wants in whatever manner he wants, letting somebody else worry about the consequences of their mess. The president comes off sounding incompetent because he actually is.

  Notice that the reccent Bush campaign material is focused entirely on economic cuts instead of the character/morals issue which was allegedly so important four years ago. Finally, it is telling that many Republicans and conservatives are praising this book for revealing the president's country-endangering flaws during the much-hyped 'war on terror'.
  
  

• Conspiracy of truth - Revelation of facts!
  By A31SOXAAD6MKI6 on 2004-04-23
  The only FREE PRESS we have left is the individual author and researcher like Woodward, who makes us think and evaluate our biased corporate-media feed and mal-nurtured minds. As a life long moderate Republican, I cannot let my ideology and prejudices obscure the fact that our President is the most ignorant, deceitful, flippant, embarrassing, and shameful President during my lifetime. I'm 60+ and have voted Republican since Eisenhower. Infringement of our Constitution and Bill of Rights all under the guise of National Security does not bode well for the US and our children's future.

  The author clearly knows his facts and can prove them. He outlines and reveals the massive lies, propaganda, and deceit of Bush and the neo-cons leading up to the Iraq war. An un-called for war, and a war that put U.S. Soldiers in harms way, needlessly. All the while the Bush administration was cutting military pay, combat pay, and Veterans benefits. Not to mention the billions he cut from the Veteran's Administration budget, denying aid to newly disabled veterans. Shame on them, but mostly shame on our President.

  The frantic, blind, and zealous followers of King Bush, (King because he was appointed by the Supreme Court and not elected),
  Rant and Rave that this is yet another lying assault on their hero. If this is a book of lies, then why does President Bush endorse the book on his re-election site? Perhaps because, our "Republicant and donut read wells." (Sorry, my attempt at humor)

  Seems like the standards of Presidential excellence; the ability to orate and write brilliantly, the deep understanding of history, politics, and the Constitution/Bill of Rights, have died. Shamefully this President has the lowest IQ of ANY President in the history of our country. Several independent studies have evaluated his IQ or lack thereof. It appears a President can start an illegal war, invade a foreign country based on outright lies and deceit, and be a hero to about 50% of Americans. What does that say about that particular segment of our citizens? People who refuse to find and seek the truth and act on it; people who value bluster, bragging, showing off, insincerity, lying, passing the buck, and puffery over intellect, truthfulness, and fairness. Read Woodward, and astute, intelligent, logical author with actual facts.

  Woodward, Clarke, Dean, and the list goes on; are heroes, even if I don't always agree with them, they all have one thing in common. They give us different points of views, decent, alternative arguments, which make ourselves objective and aware. Soldiers, firemen, and policemen are heroes because the risk their lives for us every day, usually unappreciated and underpaid. Why has my president dishonored my fellow American Veterans by not having time to attend NOT ONE funeral of a soldier from a war he started. Yet he's taken more vacations and spent more time at home than ANY President in history. You cannot discount Woodward, he is a savvy Washington reporter and insider who can back up his FACTS, FACTS, and more FACTS!

  On other conspiracies: if you are open minded and looking for those books begging for its pages to be turned...look no further. I just read a copy of Alien Rapture, by Edgar Fouche, which also blew me away. Fouche was a Top Secret Black Program `insider', whose credibility has been verified over and over. I also really liked Dan Brown's 'Deception Point,; and `Angels and Demons.' Want to be shocked, check out Dr. Paul Hill's; 'Unconventional Flying Objects,' which N-NASA tried to ban, and always read the Amazon reviews.
  
  

• good construction
  By A1W555JNV9EWU4 on 2004-04-19
  I have not finished the book yet. However, I do have to say that the construction of the book and the authority given to it by the detailed information from so many people inside the administration itself makes it a stirring read. I find it increadible that so many people prejudge the book as a "Slam the President" book. I saw Woodward on an interview and the the interviewer was definitely trying to get Woodward to make judgemental statements regarding the President, but he would not do it. He stated (which is clear in his book) that he is a reporter and simply is presenting the facts as told to him and let the reader decide. Sure, what is in the book looks bad for Bush, but it is his own words, and those close to him. If history will judge him harshly, so be it. I think most Presidents are judged harshly by history. So far, I would guess that very few in Bush's administration agreed with his decision about Iraq, but he was the boss. So they are trying to implement his descision the best they can and try to minimize the political damage he has done to himself and harm he has brought on the whole world. People like Powell, Rice, Tenet, and Rumsfeld know they will be judged by history also. And I believe this is why they spoke so frankly with Woodward. And he has to keep his sorces safe, because Bush has shown himself to be severely vindictive.
  
  
• SUPRISINGLY PRO-BUSH
  By on 2004-04-21
  Woodward again shows the President in a highly favorable light. After watching the interview on 60 mintues, I expected this book to be just another pamphlet in the tall stack of anti-Bush propaganda. I was suprised. As in his earlier book, Bush at War, Woodward depicts Bush as a serious leader, surrounded by the best of the best, making difficult decisions to protect our nation and fulfill his duty as President. Woodward also highlights Bush's interest in the accuracy of the intelligence provided him by his intelligence services. Much was was made on 60 Minutes of Bush's desire to improve the lives of people around the world. The book showed this as well. Isn't that great? Is there a problem with this? You can be certain that if a democrat President said the same thing, he would be kissed on the forehead by a beaming Mike Wallace. Apparently the complaint isn't that a President might say or believe in the betterment of our world, but rather that he would take action to make it happen.
  
  
• the 'right' are wrong
  By A2VHM6TJN8BQYE on 2004-04-21
  Bob Woodward's claims in his book are being refuted by the White House. He didn't become one of our nation's pre-eminent journalists for nothing. He has hours of taped conversation and full transcripts to back up his claims, (including taped conversations with Powell himself). He said he will keep them private, but I'm sure, if push comes to shove, he will make them public to silence his right wing critics. He did not set out to bash bush, but was obviously very disturbed by much of what he saw and heard first hand in the administration.

  "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President. or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is treasonable to the American public." (Theodore Roosevelt "editorial", Kansas City Star, May 7,1918)

  A republican president no less.
  
  

• Conspiracy of truth - Revelation of facts!
  By A2NU496OB36HF2 on 2004-04-30
  The only FREE PRESS we have left is the individual author and researcher like Woodward, who makes us think and evaluate our biased corporate-media feed and mal-nurtured minds. As a life long moderate Republican, I cannot let my ideology and prejudices obscure the fact that our President is the most ignorant, deceitful, flippant, embarrassing, and shameful President during my lifetime. I'm 60+ and have voted Republican since Eisenhower. Infringement of our Constitution and Bill of Rights all under the guise of National Security does not bode well for the US and our children's future.

  The author clearly knows his facts and can prove them. He outlines and reveals the massive lies, propaganda, and deceit of Bush and the neo-cons leading up to the Iraq war. An un-called for war, and a war that put U.S. Soldiers in harms way, needlessly. All the while the Bush administration was cutting military pay, combat pay, and Veterans benefits. Not to mention the billions he cut from the Veteran's Administration budget, denying aid to newly disabled veterans. Shame on them, but mostly shame on our President.

  The frantic, blind, and zealous followers of King Bush, (King because he was appointed by the Supreme Court and not elected),
  Rant and Rave that this is yet another lying assault on their hero.

  If this is a book of lies, then why does President Bush endorse the book on his re-election site? Perhaps because, our "Republicant and donut read wells." (Sorry, my attempt at humor)

  Seems like the standards of Presidential excellence; the ability to orate and write brilliantly, the deep understanding of history, politics, and the Constitution/Bill of Rights, have died. Shamefully this President has the lowest IQ of ANY President in the history of our country. Several independent studies have evaluated his IQ or lack thereof. It appears a President can start an illegal war, invade a foreign country based on outright lies and deceit, and be a hero to about 50% of Americans. What does that say about that particular segment of our citizens? People who refuse to find and seek the truth and act on it; people who value bluster, bragging, showing off, insincerity, lying, passing the buck, and puffery over intellect, truthfulness, and fairness. Read Woodward, and astute, intelligent, logical author with actual facts.

  Woodward, Clarke, Dean, and the list goes on; are heroes, even if I don't always agree with them, they all have one thing in common. They give us different points of views, decent, alternative arguments, which make ourselves objective and aware. Soldiers, firemen, and policemen are heroes because the risk their lives for us every day, usually unappreciated and underpaid. Why has my president dishonored my fellow American Veterans by not having time to attend NOT ONE funeral of a soldier from a war he started. Yet he's taken more vacations and spent more time at home than ANY President in history. You cannot discount Woodward, he is a savvy Washington reporter and insider who can back up his FACTS, FACTS, and more FACTS!

  On other conspiracies: if you are open minded and looking for those books begging for its pages to be turned...look no further. I just read a copy of Alien Rapture, by Edgar Fouche, which also blew me away. Fouche was a Top Secret Black Program `insider', whose credibility has been verified over and over. I also really liked Dan Brown's 'Deception Point,; and `Angels and Demons.' Want to be shocked, check out Dr. Paul Hill's; 'Unconventional Flying Objects,' which N-NASA tried to ban, and always read the Amazon reviews.
  
  

• Its about time...
  By A1TB7X6L5GZBML on 2004-04-19
  I think it's about time that people realize the scandals and deceit that occurred for the Iraq war. Bob Woodward did an excellent job showing America how low the president can go in his unjustified, ruthless, and cowardly attack. The book showed how the president of our country is nothing more than a puppet being played by Cheney. I hope everyone has the opportunity to read this book and realize how much trouble a few greedy men have gotten this country into. Thanks Mr. Woodward for a great book.
  
  
• The real reason...
  By on 2004-04-21
  "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. ... corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

  Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 (Letter to Col. William F. Elkins)
  
  

• Read the book before you trash it.
  By A2213P6RDRIY5P on 2004-04-26
  Woodward was allowed access to Bush's advisors and appointees - by BUSH. Bush sat for more than one interview with the author. Major cabinet officers contributed information and interviews.

  This is NOT an outsider's attack on the Bush White House. It IS an accurate portrayal of the events leading up to war. The people have a right to know why we went to war - exactly why - and this book helps lift the cloak on the truth behind the decision to send in the military, against the advise of most major allies and the UN.

  History will judge the war, but this book is a clear portrayal of how we got there. Woodward's style is neither glib nor cluttered, but it is easy to follow complicated events.
  
  

• Inherently interesting story, inherently frustrating style
  By A13B39ZS8W9SQO on 2004-07-30
  This book provides an interesting peek inside the American government, but the limitations of its nearly contextless, straightforward, in-their-own-words format reduce its utility. One has no good way of judging, for example, whether President Bush is being sincere when he repeatedly claims that he was reluctant to go to war and did everything he could to vet intelligence properly, or if he simply says it because that's how he would like things to be perceived. Such passages are therefore of little value to readers, who must rely on other sources and their own inferences.
  
  This style interferes with Woodward's greatest strength: his doggedness and perceptiveness as an investigative reporter. Instead, he presents something of a hybrid between old journalism and new, in which the subjects are exceedingly self-aware as they provide their stories, but are granted relentless even-handedness at any opportunity for criticism. Unfortunately, compounding this problem, Woodward simply does not demonstrate great writing ability. His prose can be extremely purple, which helps lead to the same criticism some offered of his book Maestro - it often seems deferential, if not downright reverent of its subjects.
  
  That said, Woodward doesn't seem to take the administration's perspective as gospel, instead passing it along as faithfully as possible for the reader to decide. But one must take them with so many grains of salt that, for better or worse, it's hard to imagine what the original flavor could have been. This book is a case study in why conventional wisdom says that documentaries must have viewpoints.
  
  The content itself cannot help but interest, even if some of the bigger revelations - Prince Bandar's access to the administration, the intensity of Cheney and Powell's conflicts - have already been discussed endlessly in the press. There are still many revealing tidbits to be uncovered, such as Bush's implied comparison of Iraqis to Jews in concentration camps, wishing to be bombed to end Hitler's madness, or Rice's relative weakness before the forceful personalities of Cheney and Powell. And, of course, simply getting a brief look at the inner workings of the White House, Pentagon and even CIA field operatives is fascinating. But I can't help thinking a drier, more analytical, investigative account with more context would be even more illuminating.
  
  
• Read It!
  By on 2004-05-04
  While it was clearly not written as an anti-Bush polemic, this book is nonetheless disturbing. It gives the reader an inside track of an administration that was obviously obsessed with starting a war with Iraq. It is clear that the intelligence supporting WMD and the Iraqi/Al Qaeda link was vaporous, and that the claims of the Administration were grossly embellished. Woodward leaves no doubt in my mind that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al were all aware of the fact that the intelligence was insufficient to support either their claims of WMD in Iraq or an Iraqi link to international terrorism. What is unanswered is why they were so doggedly determined to place tens of thousands of Americans in harm's way while diverting attention and resources from real and necessary counterterrorism efforts. Was it because they believed that an invasion of Iraq would be a political quick win -- to impart a sense of security (albeit a false one) to millions of frightened post 9/11 Americans by demonstrating "resolve" and attacking (in a manner sanctioned by the Al Saud family, of course) an Arab nation? Was it because of concerns over the long term viability of the Al Saud family and the perceived need to install a puppet government in Iraq to secure a source of oil in the inevitable event that the Al Sauds are overthrown by Saudi Arabia's Islamist majority? Or was it to vindicate Dubya's daddy? Can one really believe that the war with Iraq will somehow bring stability to the Middle East? I would like to think that Woodward's book will stimulate readers to question the real motives of the second Bush Administration, although I am less than optimistic that this will happen. Hopefully we will all learn the answers sooner than later, however.

  Whatever the reasons, after having read Plan of Attack, it is more obvious to me now than ever before that the Bush Administration lied to and played upon the fears of Congress and the American people to legitimize its own political agenda. And while some may excuse Bush's actions as demonstrating resolve and others (including Dubya himself) may call it divine influence, to my way of thinking, it is insanity.
  
  

• Yet another account of an administration out of control...
  By A394FNMPAQDVWX on 2004-04-20
  Woodward's account of the events described in his book are documented in the taped interviews his conducted. Those who blindly support Bush do not wish hear the facts about the ways in which this administration has distorted the truth and circumvented the legal process. They also may not want to know that even the Bush-Chenney campaign website cites it as recommended reading. It is American to want to hear all sides of the story and to be critical when the facts demand it. I recommend this book to those who seek to understand, not to those who simply and blindly want to believe.
  
  
• A balanced journalistic account
  By A2Z4KA3EFQWZOX on 2004-04-23
  This book has been widely publicized and hyped by the media and it goes to the heart of the Bush administration decision for war in Iraq. This is investigative journalism, not history, and thus we are given a very intimate portrait of the president and his advisors and the halls of power from the U.N to Saudi to the white house where decisions were made and plans were hatched. The main problem with this book is not its political views, because it is surprisingly balanced for such a heated subject.

  The main problem here is that this book has no sense of history and no conclusion of context. Just what was the Iraq war? How will the Iraq war be judged? For some the decision to judge the Iraq war a vast conspiracy is already cemented in our mindsets. But for many the Iraq war has not crystallized. For the Iraq war was quite simply a seminary event. America has never before embarked on a war of building democracy beyond the western hemisphere. One could argue differently about Japan and Germany but the reality is the American occupation of those countries was due to their own attacks on America. In Iraq we have a country far removed from America posing no threat to the mainland, yet posing a threat to the region. And we have an administration with the willingness to gamble that American troops could not just conquer a hostile Arab country but could also create democracy in a place where no such tradition exists. In the least the administration felt a friendly dictator could be set up in one of the Middle east's most fractious countries. This was the epic of the Iraq war. Far beyond a mere conspiracy to get a few gallons of oil, and beyond the mere propaganda of WMD, Iraq was in affect the epic of America entering its place on the world stage as a hegemon, capable of anything. Woodward doesn't touch on this theme and yet for a man of his stature and a book as anticipated as this it would have been nice to have a conclusion that explained just what the Iraq war symbolized for American policy.

  Thus in the end this book is a balanced account of the events, without much analysis of the aftermath. A good read for anyone interested in the roll up to the Iraq war and the contemporary administration

  Seth J. Frantzman
  
  

• Final Chapter Is Yet To Be Written
  By AXMKAXC0TR9AW on 2004-05-10
  Bob Woodward of The Washington Post has provided us with a behind the scenes view of President George Bush and his inner circle as they prepare for war against Iraq. I get the impression that Bush was determined to go to war, and didn't bother to ask for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's opinion on the matter, and didn't like what Secretary of State Colin Powell had to say regarding the matter. It appears that the reason for going to war, WMD, don't exist after all, and the evidence to support it was not the "slam dunk" that CIA director George Tenet claimed it to be. I felt Woodward gave both sides to the matter and let the president have his say regarding questions the author posed to him. How history treats President Bush and his decision to go to war will not be known for some period of time. The first indication will be in this fall's election. The book is very worth while regarding a matter we should all familiarize ourselves with.
  
  
• form your own opinion
  By A3ERXA9XDKRZ8O on 2004-04-20
  the only people giving this book 1 star havn't read the book and get all their opinions from gasbags like Sean Hannity instead of reading books such as this and forming their own opinions.
  
  
• Not a Woodward Style Book
  By on 2004-04-20
  This account of the days preceeding war in Iraq is replete with unfounded generalizations about the principals and in fact, Woodward often assumed feelings held by certain principals as far back as 1989. Furthermore, Woodward's Bush At War was relatively objective and the writing was very lucid. This book on the other hand is clearly Woodward's attempt to determine the outcome of the November election at the expense of a portion of his reputation of being an objective, respected, insightful writer/journalist. This book would have been more interesting had Woodward relayed the account without such strong liberal undertones.

  Not worth the buy.
  
  

• OUTSTANDING!
  By on 2004-04-20
  Woodward is back at his finest with facinating in-depth documentation of FACT FACT FACT, straight from the sources themeselves. For over 30 years this highly credible reporter has brought us the inside working of the white house however, clean BUSH AT WAR or dirty PLAN OF ATTACK (if you tend to see it so) it maybe. Woodward actually writes rather unbiased but it pretty much backs up the other current affairs books topping the charts
  HOUSE OF BUSH HOUSE OF SAUD, AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, WORSE THEN WATERGATE, PRICE OF LOYALTY, on and on. I am thankful Woodward has come forth with this documentation - I really wish it was sooner. WHY DID HE TAKE SO LONG? This book is great. Thank you!
  
  
• Did you people even read the Book?
  By A31R49QGT30TMW on 2004-04-20
  I don't think half of the people who have posted here have read Woodward's book. Those on the right are blindly lashing out at the book because they heard that it may be a problem for Bush. Those on the left are stupidly praising it for the same reason. To all the liberals I say that if you read this book hoping for some bush-bashing expose like Clark's book you are wasting your money. And for all of you conservatives who reflexively attack anything that may hurt Bush, you need to read this book in its entirety. Bob Woodward is a great author who deserves to be heard. My only complaint is that the book quotes far too many unnamed sources. This may be a necessity in his case but it doesn't help his credibility. All in all Plan of Attack is a must read this year.
  
  
• LIKE WATCHING THE MAKING OF SAUSAGE
  By A2GKBBRP2CZBO2 on 2004-07-14
  "Plan of Attack" is as comprehensive an account as we're going to get during our lifetimes (those of us in late middle age or better, anyway) about the events, opinions, arguments, disagreements, office politics, ideology, plans and preparation that led up to the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq in March of 2003.

  Reading this book is a bit like watching sausage being made; it's a tad revolting. After finishing Bob Woodward's opus I walked away with the troubling impression that G.W. Bush is not the strong leader he keeps telling us he is. He's more the spoiled, insensitive, self-centered, stubborn, hyperactive little boy with attention deficit disorder who likes to play cowboys and Indians. Bush is often out of touch and out of the loop, partly because of his inability to grasp complex (and sometimes even simple) issues and partly because of the control, by the people who surround him, of the flow of information that actually reaches the president. There's a line about Colin Powell's observation that no decision gets made until the president has met alone with Vice President Dick Cheney. This and other parts of the narrative serve to raise questions about who is really in charge in this administration. (Members of the 9/11 commission have recently expressed serious doubt that Cheney's order to shoot down hijacked airliners that day actually came from the president, as Bush and Cheney both testified in their joint closed-door session with the panel. A major reason for their disbelief is that the commission found no record of this alleged Bush-Cheney communication, though established protocols require that such contacts be recorded).

  Secretary of State Colin Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage, are the lone voices of reason straining to be heard above the cacophony of trigger-happy madmen. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz comes up with a plan to overrun and seize Iraq's southern oil fields, with the expectation that the Iraqis will rally around U.S. forces and rise up to overthrow Saddam's government...the Bay of Pigs assumption. Powell keeps shaking his head, saying "this is lunacy". In his opinion, "it was one of the most absurd, strategically unsound proposals he had ever heard."

  General Tommy Franks was initially another figure who questioned the idea of going into Iraq. When asked to develop a war plan for invading that country, he was incredulous. They were in the midst of one war, Afghanistan, and they wanted detailed planning for another, Iraq? "Goddam," Franks said, "what the f___ are they talking about?"

  But the headlong rush to war, vigorously promoted by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, (Saudi prince/ambassador) Bandar, and others, picked up momentum and reached the point of no return. Despite clear indications that a resolution to invade Iraq would not pass muster in the U.N. Security Council, and despite the overt opposition to the adventure by France, Russia, Germany, and a host of other countries, Bush ordered the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign state.

  It's my impression that there's a subtle undertow, barely a hint, that sinister forces might have been at play in Bush's decision to go forward with the invasion. For example, when former ambassador and Africa expert Joseph C. Wilson is sent to investigate the rumor that Saddam had tried to buy weapons-grade nuclear fuel from an African nation, he comes back from the war-torn continent with the unambiguous conclusion that the rumor was unfounded.

  Based on Wilson's report, a line referring to Saddam's attempt to buy fissionable materials is deleted from an early draft of the president's upcoming State of the Union address. But the sentence mysteriously reappears in the final speech that makes it to the teleprompter for Bush to read to the world. (Wilson later [July 6, 2003] published an article in the New York Times titled "What I Didn't Find in Africa", which opened with the question "Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?" As punishment for daring to speak out, Wilson's wife was "outed" as a covert CIA agent, effectively ending her career and placing her life, and the lives of her overseas contacts, in jeopardy.)
  
  It's hard to fathom how Bob Woodward managed, with the cooperation of this famously secretive administration, to gather all the intricate details revealed in his fascinating tome. The book is replete with candid takes of the principals and other participants in this not-very-pretty story of how the U.S. got into the sticky, bloody mess from which it may never completely extricate itself. I suspect that Woodward exploited the good will he created when he presented Bush, et al, as courageous heroes in his previous book, "Bush at War". The cynic in me says that he wrote that book in order to gain the confidence of the Bush gang, laying the groundwork that would allow him the access to people, documents, and other resources essential to the preparation of the current book, a hard-hitting indictment of a dysfunctional administration.

  "Plan of Attack" is a very instructive must-read for those interested in government, politics, history, organizational behavior, military strategy, international relations, diplomacy, covert operations, hanging with the big dogs, the making of sausage, and perhaps most importantly, the importance of voting intelligently.
  
  

• A Must Read
  By AX8RIHQP9X47 on 2004-04-20
  Anyone who says that this is just another biased book does not know the author and has not read the book. This is by far one of the most informative books about the Bush White House, it's very balanced and fair, if someone has a problem with some of the content then the problem lies with the administration not the messenger. Overall a good book, fair and balanced.
  
  
• Fact by Fact by FACT
  By on 2004-04-20
  It's all here. It's all here from the sources themselves. Thank goodness we have reporters like Woodward and heroes like Clarke, Dean, etc. who are strong enough to speak up to defend what's right, TO ACTUALLY CARE. God Bless you! and thank you for the wonderful read.
  
  
• More honesty
  By on 2004-04-25
  I could not find anything from the weeding through propaganda in the media.

  It is only through books such as this, written by those with 'behind the scenes' experience that this knowlege can be obtained.

  I am quickly engulfing these books, now having gotten my head out of the mud of partison beliefs.

  Great. Keep them coming.
  
  

• Agenda Setting Media Power
  By A23SB6VGGB9E8U on 2004-04-20
  If this book proves one thing, it is the media's agenda setting power.

  No one or nothing can tell Americans what to think. The media, however, can be singularly successful at telling Americans what to think about. If you doubt this, simply take a look at this book's reviews. Everyone has an opinion and my hunch is that none of those opinions were changed by their reading of the book.

  There is no doubt that Woodward is a gifted reporter. Not only does he possess access to the key players, but also the ability to gain their confidence. Sources talk to Woodward. Once he garners the sources recollections of what happened, he relates to the reader in a clear and concise fashion.

  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. A book affords the proper media for questions of this nature to be explored. Bob Woodward, true to his journalistic training, does not venture here. Rather, the reader is given a blow-by-blow account of the stage entrances and exits of key Washington players reconstructed from interviews and notes of the players.

  There is no thoughtful review of the questions raised. 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 is hot; the public is being subjected to a cascade of Bush bashing books. 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 cuts 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.

  The good news is given the facts, the American public has the capacity to sort and arrive at a conclusion. The question this book raises is why we have to wait for a book to be published to have access to them.
  
  

• State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III
• Bush at War
• The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008
• The Commanders
• Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq