State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III Reviews

• What You Don't Hear On The News

  
  By A28WJUJF6D2ULA on 2006-10-01
  I couldn't put this book down. And what I read inside it last night scared me. In short the message of this 600-page expose is this: we are being led by an administration that is unapproachably isolated from reality, our troops are facing unrelenting violence from guerilla fighters abroad, things are growing more violent, and even the Iraqi people wish we'd leave.
  
  I emerged from reading State of Denial, the follow-up to Woodward's two previous books concerning the Bush administration, not only shaken and depressed but renewed in my sympathy for those American troops enduring the nightmare that is my nation's ongoing and misguided military presence in the crumbling, nominal country of Iraq. This book is beyond pessimistic but its message that things will only get worse in the future is backed up by data and testimony that seems all but undeniable. Here Woodward has interviewed top policy makers and those who were or are involved in running our shallow national policy on the Iraq War. As a result Donald Rumsfeld is exposed as a dictatorial yes-man whose frequent careless mistakes have cost many lives. It is revealed that a number of insiders, including the First Lady pleaded with the President to replace Rumsfeld with someone else: preferably an old guard GOP figure like James Baker. Tommy Franks and other generals are shown as short-sighted and clueless figures, often hamstrung by Washington, unable to plan for those long-term goals that should have followed an apparently easy victory in 2003.
  
  One thing that jumped out at me was the raw statistic that attacks against US forces are currently occurring almost quarter-hourly, and of course it's not news but shocking to hear again how radical Islamists are flocking to Iraq from nations thousands of miles removed, all for the chance to secure for themselves a "martyrdom" as they conduct assaults on American forces. This war is a quagmire and State of Denial--aptly named!---makes that very clear. It was entered into on false pretenses, conducted without a clear plan of execution and with scant exit strategy, and even the supposed justification for why we are there has shifted as the Bush administration re-defines its puzzling crusade from season to season. Woodward reveals how the President's own staff are as divided by the Iraq War as is the American citizenry at large. Those who sycophantically bow to Mr. Bush stick around in high-ranking governmental positions, and those who voice opposition to our out-of-control leadership soon find themselves ostracized---as was Colin Powell---or removed from their jobs altogether.
  
  After reading Mr. Woodward's book I feel the mess our President almost singled-handedly got this country into four years ago is at this point all-but hopeless in terms of victory ever coming or a pro-democracy future ever existing in Iraq. A small group of people have created for the entire world a very large and bloody fiasco.
  
  

• Woodward hits hard in Volume III of his GWOT history...

  
  By A2UTLJJWNBL4YS on 2006-10-01
  State of Denial, the third book in famed journalist Bob Woodward's examination of the Bush administration's approach to war, is sure to be one of the most controversial. State of Denial looks at the policy decisions and inner maneuverings of the administration as America got deeper and deeper into the quagmire that is the Iraq War. As one can see by the reviews already up on Amazon, emotions are running high since Woodward has taken a decidedly harsh view towards the administration. Ironically for Woodward, he was taken to task for being an administration cheerleader in the first two volumes. What State of Denial shows us is that no matter your personal politics, it's important to understand why decisions were made, who were making them, and what people inside the government are saying about the conduct of the war to date. Woodward accomplished that quite well here, thanks to interviews with many of the key players in the process (though notably not with the President and Vice-President.)
  
  One of the main focuses of the book is Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who has been under heavy criticism for his heavy-handed management of the war and his failures to make tactical and strategic adjustments. Rumsfeld is in charge of a Pentagon intent on spending billions on high tech and unnecessary weapon systems like the F-22, the DDG-1000 destroyer, and the Army FCS while making little effort on raising the overall troop strength of the Army and Marine Corps. Even with the chorus of military and politicians calling for Rumsfeld's firing, it still comes as a surprise that Andrew Card, Bush's chief of staff and top advisor was pushing for Rumsfeld's ouster as early as 2004. Woodward also claims Card enlisted First Lady Laura Bush in the effort, a story that seems somewhat apocryphal. In several in-depth interviews with Woodward, Rumsfeld comes across as honest, arrogant, and firmly believing in his own success despite the torrent of criticism he receives from the military and NSC staffers interviewed for the book.
  
  Some of the newer nuggets of information offered in the book are fascinating. Woodward reveals that then National Security Advisor Condi Rice was briefed in July 2001 by CIA Director George Tenet and CIA counter-terror expert Cofer Black on the increasing likelihood of an attack on US interests. Woodward discusses how Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, was a key player in advising President Bush before and after 9/11. Another of the book's most interesting revelations is that Henry Kissinger regularly advises President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. Considering Kissinger's status as the architect of a failed Vietnam policy, this tidbit only reinforces Woodward's assertion that the administration refuses to do anything other than "stay the course." Throughout the book the administration is portrayed as as blind to the reality of the Iraq War as it was eager to paint a rosy public picture, ignoring or classifying facts that didn't fit its view of success and labeling those who disagreed as negative and not "team players."
  
  As with many other Woodward books, the book reads quickly and quite cleanly. The level of detail is impressive, and State of Denial expands upon the material covered by James Risen and Thomas Ricks. The material on Bremer and his disasterous tenure as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority was adroitly addressed in detail in Rajiv Chandrasekaran's Imperial Life in the Emerald City, and Woodward doesn't add anything new in that regard. One wonders how much of the material given by Woodward's sources is slanted to better represent their role in history's judgemental eye and how much is actual truth. Woodward lays out the material in its entirety from the many sources, and lets the reader decide which is revisionist and which is reality. Partisans on both side will either love or hate this book regardless of its content, but as a whole this book is fair and balanced. Woodward is no partisan attack dog, he is a journalist committed to telling a story fairly and accurately without regard to what his critics may think. Highly Recommended.
  
  A.G. Corwin
  St. Louis, MO
  
  

• The Facts Support the Book

  
  By A20F6WHACP65CK on 2006-09-30
  I am writing this review as a once Republican that twice voted for the Bush regime.
  
  Normally I avoid books that attack one party or another because our media is so can skew an individuals writings. A friend received an advance copy of State of Denial and I finished it in a day and I must say, it is great.
  
  Each claim that this book makes from the Irag war, to Rumsfeld to Rice and finally to Bush are suprisingly supported and validated through many online NEUTRAL sources and as recently as last night, 09/29/06 many were validated by the White Hours.
  
  I do not want to ruin the contents of this book for anyone but I would encourage you to pick it up and read a few pages of Chapter 3. It will have you hooked.
  
  I hope this book will give people insight as to why it is so important to vote and more importantly research the party and officials they are voting for.
  
  There is a reason our country is in such a mess and this book well direct you to the right path.
  
  T~
  
  
  
  

• Seems like the lovefest between Bush & Woodward's over!

  
  By A3IMWEG8ZKFKKK on 2006-10-03
  Although I would've loved to seen Woodward come clean on what he REALLY knows about the Plame leak, I settle for the fact that he's finally decided to drop the Emperor's coattails and return to the world of real journalism and basic human integrity! Of course, that's not to say I'll ever forgive him for being a Bush cheerleader leading up to the 2004 elections. Still, this is an incredible book that exposes not only the folly of a president unhinged from reality, but also continually unfolding tragedy of a Congress and right wing base that still supports this fool and would gladly follow him over the cliff he's leading all of us to. It's infuriating, but--like the many books exposing the folly, arrogance and greed of the Bush regime--I'm really not sure it will influence the outcome of the November elections...especially when you're talking about people who get their news and opinion from Fox News or blowhards like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity. God help us all!
  
  

• Willful or Wistful Denial?

  
  By A1TPW86OHXTXFC on 2006-10-01
  "President Bush emerges as a passive, impatient, sophomoric and intellectually incurious leader, presiding over a grossly dysfunctional war cabinet and given to an almost religious certainty that makes him disinclined to rethink or re-evaluate decisions he has made about the war. It's a portrait that stands in stark contrast to the laudatory one Mr. Woodward drew in 'Bush at War,' his 2002 book, which depicted the president -- in terms that the White House press office itself has purveyed -- as a judicious, resolute leader, blessed with the 'vision thing' his father was accused of lacking and firmly in control of the ship of state. "As this new book's title indicates, Mr. Woodward now sees Mr. Bush as a president who lives in a state of willful denial about the worsening situation in Iraq...."New York Times
  
  All of the advanced press for this book has opened old wounds. Or should I say wounds that have been festering. Many of us have had our doubts about the Iraq War, but now many of our doubts are realized. Mr. Woodward, with the assistance of 75 people in the administration, President Bush included, has given us a first hand version of what we have all feared. We have been duped. We have heard stories from those who have left the administration, that the War was hatched by Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Rumsfeld, and fed to the President. President Bush knew when he agreed to enter into Afghanistan after 9/11 that Iraq was the next stop. VP Cheney had an organized mission to get Saddam and to render him useless. General Powell saw this and tried to stop the madness but nothing was to be gained. We went to Iraq, and if we had had a competent plan we could have ended the war within the first 3 weeks. Here we are now 4 years later and the War is taking its toll. According to Bob Woodward's book, there is an insurgent attack every 15 minutes against our soldiers, 4 attacks an hour, or 96 a day. At that rate, there are 672 attacks a week( that figure was provided by Brian, who commented on the math and provided the correct numbers ) we the public were not told of the severity of the attacks. Yet we hear of the body bags returning ion a daily basis.
  
  The entire White House staff was at odds over the war and to this day the conflict continues. Colin Powell followed the President, only because he is such a good soldier. It should be noted that those who were in opposition are no longer at the White House. President Bush stays assured that he is following the right path. "Woodward also tells Wallace that aged Republican war-horse Henry Kissinger is closely advising Bush, telling him there is no exit strategy other than victory."Woodward adds. 'This is so fascinating. Kissinger's fighting the Vietnam War again because, in his view, the problem in Vietnam was we lost our will.'
  
  "President Bush is absolutely certain that he has the U.S. and Iraq on the right course, says Woodward. So certain is the president on this matter, Woodward says, that when Mr. Bush had key Republicans to the White House to discuss Iraq, he told them, 'I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me.'" Washington Post.
  
  This is a book for every American to read. Interviews with the top people involved can only give a story that is to be believed. Bob Woodward has written this book in his usual style. He interviews the people who knew what was going on, many of them behind the scenes, and then reports the facts as they were told. He gives us a timeline and a sense that this war was well planned. The generals who would lead this war, in particular, Gen. Tommy Franks, had a year in which to plan and to build the infrastructure necessary for a war that this administration found to be apt and just. We are learning that all is not what it seemed, and we are left to pick up the pieces of this war. How did this happen? Why have we allowed this to continue? Questions with answers that are just beginning to surface.
  
  Recommended. prisrob 9-30-06
  
  
  
• Excellent - Tells How the Iraq Tragedy Unfolded!
  By A22RY8N8CNDF3A on 2006-09-30
  State of Denial" documents the Bush administration's Iraq debacle from the beginning. First there are Bush's initial rationale for becoming (our least-prepared modern-day) president prior to completing his first term as Texas' governor - basing his entire rationale on tax cuts, modernizing the military (eg. missile defense), education reform (Bush's major Texas "success" in Houston turned out to be a fraud), and helping faith-based initiatives (no thoughts whatsoever about foreign policy). Another Bush motivation to run, per Prince Bandar, Saudi Arabia's Ambassador, was to get revenge for his father's defeat by Clinton/Gore; then there was the smoldering need for finishing the job on Saddam Hussein. (Needless to say, these do not total to good rationale for becoming U.S. President, nor are they indicative of a serious thinker.)
  
  Selecting Cheney as V.P. running-mate also helped set things in the wrong direction - his bias towards finding evidence of WMD (eg. digging into unverified intelligence cables), focus on secrecy and regaining executive powers underlay much of the Iraq War marketing. Then there was Bush's selection of Rumsfeld for Secretary of Defense - partly based on the idea of proving Bush #1 wrong (didn't trust Rumsfeld, thought him too self-sure and arrogant), and Rumsfeld's subsequent selection of Joint Chiefs Chairmen that were easy to roll over (eg. reduce requested Iraq troop strength; fail to take their issues directly to Bush, per Nichols-Goldwater).
  
  (Failing to send enough troops into Iraq probably is the single most disastrous mistake made in Iraq War II, other than invading in the first place. However, it may be unfair to blame Rumsfeld - the Bush administration "group-think" (except for Powell) was that we'd be out of Iraq within a few months; further, it is doubtful that the U.S. has the troops to sustain levels the generals believed were needed. On the other hand, Rumsfeld has no excuse for not immediately taking action to improve vehicle armor against IEDs, failing to create a military strategy - besides aggravating all Iraqis through night-time raids, then driving up and down the roads allowing them the opportunity for IED revenge - to achieve security, and failing to create a set of 3-5 key performance measures and goals.)
  
  Deeper into the plot we get CIA Director Tenet's July 2001 effort to convince Rice to make terrorism a priority, only to get the "brush-off" from her - Woodward documents that no terrorism plan was even made ready for approval until 9/10 (after eight other issues), hardly the priority Rice claims. Far worse, if the FBI had simply been focused and monitored one of the two hijackers it knew were in the country, it would have learned that he bought ten tickets for himself and other terrorists for those fateful 9/11 flights - possibly unraveling the entire plot!
  
  "State of Denial" continues on to assemble other key pieces, including Bush's stubbornness, over-reliance on Cheney and Rumsfeld, and lack of curiosity (probably also the reason Bush #1 did not communicate his serious Iraq concerns pre-invasion), Rice's inability to challenge others' thinking, to move beyond "you're not on the team" vs. dissenters, follow-up on action items, and failure to update Iraq planning as the situation changed, Bremer's extremely damaging decisions (delaying elections and turnover of power, disbanding the Iraq army, de-Baathing the nation), Powell's failure to use his moral authority to confront Bush, and an incredible administration-wide inability to make decisions in an open and inclusive manner, set goals, delegate, pursue performance descepancies, resolve disagreements (eg. assign responsibility for postwar Iraq security), or follow-up. (How did he ever get through Harvard Business School?) Meanwhile, as the "Iraqis stand up" (hundreds of thousands of trained police and army recruits), we fail to "stand down" because the number of attacks continually increases - despite Bush's constant claims of progress.
  
  Bottom Line: President Bush, our first "MBA president" both lacks the requisite experience and skills, and is psychologically unfit to lead the nation; to compensate he focuses on being a "cheerleader" (simply willing things to happen), and distorts and withholds information.
  
  
• GREAT BOOK! SHOWS WHY THE IRAQ WAR WILL BE THE 2ND WAR WE LOSE
  By AJCC8AQVRQNYZ on 2006-10-02
  after reading this book I now know that Iraq will be the 2nd war the U.S. will lose - all because Americans put their trust in George W. Bush and ended up regretting it. Bush - worst president in U.S. history.
  
  
• Woodward follows, he never leads opinion
  By AUM3YMZ0YRJE0 on 2006-09-30
  Once again, we are treated to the insider view of the goings on in DC by Woodward. This time, rather than fawning over Bush's leadership style and the "discipline" of his administration (in the "warm bath" approach of a Larry King), we are given a story of dissension, disarray, ignorance, and incompetence. It is, in a word, devastating in that Woodward essentially accuses the Bush II adminstration of what his critics have known or suspected since, well, the beginning: Bush may lack curiousity and the intellectual powers to reassess his positions, but he is nonetheless a cunning and ruthless politician who will, yes, lie.
  
  Aside from some valuable (though minor) revelations, such as Kissinger's "talks" with the president on staying the course as we "failed" to do in Vietnam, I really didn't find anything new on the first reading. That means that the subtext is more important than the contents, which you can find in dozens of books that are two or more years old by now - to wit, people are no longer afraid to talk, and they chose the prime establishment journalist, Woodward, to vent systematically. As such, we are witnessing a new conventional wisdom emerging in that they are now so open - no longer can administration officials blame this criticism on disloyalty or leftist critics of bad faith. This time, it is mainstream, and Woodward lays it out clearly and with an elite insider stamp. This represents a fundamental turning point within the beltway.
  
  That being said, as is typical with Woodward, there is practically no analysis or context, just raw reporting and long paragraphs of verbatim quotes. Again, this is going to be an important historical source, but it does not make for fun reading or for anything that bears more than a very very quick read, as nothing is that surprising to those of us who read the newspapers. Compared with his prinicpal competitor, Seymour Hersh, Woodward appears to lack vision, eloquence, and even passion; Hersh discovers stories we didn't know, Woodward buttresses what the informed already know by advancing the agenda of some talking-head big shots.
  
  Recommended for what it reflects on the consensus in DC regarding a failing presidency. But then, many of us have predicted this since the invasion of IRAQ.
  
  
• The Bush Legacy Continues
  By A179GX8E3M4G52 on 2006-10-03
  It looks like Bob Woodward has had an epiphany. After two milquetoast efforts Woodward has finally come out with a scathing book worthy of his reputation. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, nobody gets a free pass. They're all fair game in this expose' of the dysfunctional administration.
  
  Like the other similar books I have devoured, it is meant to be informative and factual. It is probably directed at the average Bush supporter who seem to shun being confused with facts and therefore would not be caught within a mile of such sedition.
  
  Unfortunately, this book and others like it serve as kindling, inflaming the passions of those of us who believe Dubya is, at best, a study in mediocrity. It reinforces our incredulity that this man was re-elected. I can truthfully say, not a day goes by that I haven't marveled at the fact that this man is our President.
  
  
• Woodward speaks the truth again
  By A1OBPHRXHZF8P6 on 2006-09-30
  Being right about this administration's `direction' in Iraq has not been a good experience; dissent seriously gets portrayed as opposing national security--as if the two principles cannot ever and do not ever coexist. Even as the evidence literally piles up to indicate otherwise, the president and his *remaining* cronies continue insisting their way is THE way which America must follow. The current ideological impasse is the consequential end result from their honest inability to work in reality!
  
  One of America's most venerated (if not also infamous) investigative journalist succinctly restates our case in his most recent book. At this point, it's not that he is making the case that Bush is a dangerous incompetent; it's at this particular point in this specific administration and pulling all of the information together with his conclusion. Their elaborate house of cards now rapidly falls down, but the Bush administration officials honestly continue on believing that their public policy is totally workable because they have constructed policy which intentionally does not require functioning in a state of reality.
  
  Since one of the general criticisms of Bush and his administration is their being locked away in `fantasy world' reading this work filled me with both a sense of comedic relief and ironic dejavu. How much further will America have to slide into chaos before we finally leave Iraq?
  
  Interviews conducted with Former White House Press Secretary Andrew Card drive home the point that Iraq was an operation just waiting to be bungled and the Administration knew how badly things were going all while feeding the American people spin otherwise. Card comes across as the most likeable one in this entanglement because he knew when to leave the White House while Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush are determined to stick with Iraq even while their own evidence indicates that a change in policy will be a perfectly acceptable (if at least rational) option. However, this administration has a standing aversion to operating on rational thought!
  
  This book isn't light reading by far, but it is important reading. Sure, we joke about their `dim' policymaking processes, but documented results of the Bush administration's processes were laid out right here. I will even go as far to say that it should be on the `required reading' lists of all people before we head out to the polls this November.
  
  
  
• Reads like great fiction but unfortunately isn't
  By A1XXT7D7DR4821 on 2006-10-01
  When you begin State of Denial it grips your interest immediately. I found that the time and pages flew by
  (excepts for the parts I re-read to be sure I had read it correctly) and I didn't want to put it down. In fact, I was actually told that the place I was reading was closing and I had to leave. When I picked up the book the cashier at the bookstore said that he was going to buy the book and start it on his break because it was "flying" off the shelves. It's discounted everywhere and even if not it's well worth the $$.
  
  Between this book and the Generals who testified on Capital Hill the other day about the need to be rid of Rumsfield, for example. Those who continue to deny the facts about Bush AND his administration need to give into their natural "congnitive dissonance," forget about saving face, and support the changes needed to remedy the mistakes in Iraq so our country and perhaps much of the free world can be saved. If you think I am histrionic, it's not so.
  
  Until recently I wanted very much for us to pull our troops out of Iraq. After listening to the Generals and processing the information in this book and other reliable sources I have changed my mind and now believe that we have no choice but to stay and fix the problems in Iraq. The need for a change in leadership (DOD) and budgetary changes is absolute for this to occur.
  
  The book is just another interesting piece of the puzzle - it's not a mind blower if you'd paid attention to current events. It's just fascinating read that can put the leadership into perspective for those who are unwilling to face facts (blind Bush supporters).
  
  
• Stake in the Heart of the W Presidency
  By A1S8AJIUIO6M9K on 2006-10-05
  Here are the highlights I drew out that make this book extraordinary and worth reading even if it leaves one with a political hang-over:
  
  1) The Federal Government is broken, and was made worse by a President who knew nothing of foreign policy, a Vice President who closed down the inter-agency policy system, and a Secretary of Defense who was both contemptuous of the uniformed military and held in contempt by Bush Senior.
  
  2) My opinion of the Secretary of Defense actually went UP with this book. Rumsfeld has clearly been well-intentioned, has clearly asked the right questions, but he let his arrogance get away from him. Given a choice between Admiral Clark, a truth-telling transformative person, and General Myers, an acquiescent warrior diminished to senior clerk, Rumsfeld made the right choice for his management style, and the wrong choice for the good people in our Armed Forces. I *like* Rumsfeld's Anchor Chain letter as it has been described, and wish it had been included as an Appendix. Rumsfeld got the control he wanted, but he sacrificed honest early warning in so doing.
  
  3) This book also improves my opinion of the Saudis and especially Prince Bandar. While I have no tolerance for Saudi Royalty--the kind of corrupt debauched individuals that make Congressman Foley look like a vestal virgin--the Saudis did understand that Bush's unleashing of Israel was disastrous, and they did an excellent job of shaking up the President. Unfortunately, they could not overcome Dick Cheney, who should resign or be impeached for gross dereliction of duty and usurpation of Presidential authority.
  
  4) Tenet's visit to Rice on 10 July is ably recounted and adds to the picture. It joins others books, notably James Risen's "State of War," "Hubris," FASCO" and "The End of Iraq in presenting a compelling picture of a dysfunctional National Security Advisor who is now a dysfunctional Secretary of State--and Rumsfeld still won't return her phone calls.....
  
  5) The author briefly touches on how CIA shined in the early days of the Afghan War (see my reviews of "JAWBREAKER" and "First In" for more details) but uses this to show that Rumsfeld took the impotence of the Pentagon, and the success of CIA, personally.
  
  6) The author also tries to resurrect Tenet somewhat, documenting the grave reservations that Tenet had about Iraq, but Tenet, like Colin Powell, failed to speak truth to power or to the people, and failed the Nation.
  
  7) Rumsfeld recognized the importance of stabilization and reconstruction (and got an excellent report from the Defense Science Board, not mentioned by this book, on Transitions to and From Hostilities) but he vacillated terribly and ultimately failed to be serious on this critical point.
  
  8) This book *destroys* the Defense Intelligence Agency, which some say should be burned to the ground to allow a fresh start. The author is brutal in recounting the struggles of General Marks to get DIA to provide any useful information on the alleged 946 WMD sites in Iraq. DIA comes across as completely derelict bean counters with no clue how to support operators going in harms way, i.e. create actionable intelligence.
  
  9) Despite WMD as the alleged basis for war, the military had no unit trained, equipped, or organized to find and neutralize WMD sites. A 400 person artillery unit was pressed into this fearful service.
  
  10) General Jay Garner is the star of this story. My face lit up as I read of his accomplishments, insights, and good judgments. He and General Abizaid both understood that allowing the Iraqi Army to stay in being with some honor was the key to transitioning to peace, and it is clearly documented that Dick Cheney was the undoing of the peace. It was Dick Cheney that deprived Jay Garner of Tom Warrick from State, the man who has overseen and understood a year of planning on making the peace, and it was Dick Cheney that fired Garner and put Paul Bremer, idiot pro-consult in place. Garner clearly understood a month before the war--while there was still time to call it off--that the peace was un-winable absent major changes, but he could not get traction within the ideological fantasy land of the Vice Presidency.
  
  11) Apart from State, one military officer, Colonel Steve Peterson, clearly foresaw the insurgency strategy, but his prescient warnings were dismissed by the larger group.
  
  12) General Tommy Franks called Doug Feith "the dumbest bastard on the planet," --Feith deprived Garner of critical information and promoted Chalabi as the man with all the answers.
  
  13) The author covers the 2004 election night very ably, but at this point the book started to turn my stomach. The author appears oblivious to the fact that the Ohio election was stolen through the manipulation of 12 voting districts, loading good machines in the pro-Bush areas, putting too few machines in the pro-Kerry areas, and in some cases, documented by Rolling Stone, actually not counting Kerry votes at all on the tallies. Ohio has yet to pay, as does Florida, for its treasonous betrayal of the Republic.
  
  Today I issued a press release pointing toward the Pakistan treaty creating the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan as a safehaven for the Taliban and Al Qaeda as the definitive end--loss of--the war on terror, which is a tactic, not an enemy. As Colin Gray says in "Modern Strategy," time is the one strategic variable that cannot be bought nor replaced. As a moderate Republican I dare to suggest that resigning prior to the November elections, in favor of John McCain, Gary Hart, and a Coalition Cabinet, might be the one thing that keeps the moderate Republican incumbents, and the honest Democrats--those that respect the need for a balanced budget--in place to provide for continuity in Congress, which must *be* the first branch of government rather than slaves to the party line.
  
  It's crunch time. This book is the last straw. The American people are now *very* angry.
  
  
• Stunning
  By A34I1QG9D32KEW on 2006-10-04
  I've read all three of Woodward's "Bush" books, State of Denial presents a very different picture of Bush and the White house than the previous two. The picture that emerges is of a White House intent on using disinformation to deceive the public. This same White House is portrayed to be awash in political infighting, and to lack a leader with the vision to produce an appropriate long term strategy. In SoD Woodward presents information that shows that although disinformation has been part of the approach to Iraq from the start, it reached a much higher level during the 2004 campaign. Information is presented clearly demonstrating that the Bush administration wasn't interested in the threat of terrorism on US soil prior to 9/11.
  
  Now, much of this information has been available in less reputable sources for quite a while. What Woodward accomplishes is to provide a well reasoned and researched indictment of the Bush White House. Time will tell if the facts in here are correct, but assuming the majority are the conclusion is that the US has been poorly served by an incompetent government.
  
  
• What next
  By A1WMVV2AHMONSO on 2006-10-02
  Here we are again faced with the discloures about the inner workings of the Bush Presidency, and of course denial is the theme. Mr. Woodward has exposed some of the same themes others have accused this "Pseudo" President of doing, or not doing to protect this country from those who seek to do us harm.
  
  The statements of how Bush is convinced he is on the right track in Iraq, and his dying loyalty to Donald Rumsfeld, is quite revealing. How those who sounded the alarm concerning 9/11 and how these warnings were not taken seriously, and or denied the fact these warning were were issued.
  
  Funny, now that the shoe is on the other foot, the "Right" finds itself upset, and in a defensive position, and instead of trying to refocus they (The Right) just attack their critics.
  
  The theme here is this nation is at risk of more terrorist attacks, and our gavernment is impotent, because the "Nut" at the wheel refuses to pay attention to the road signs.
  
  After reading this book one comes away with a question, is Iraq worth the lives of the brave men, and women in our military? Of course they are giving their lives for this Nation, out of a sense of duty? Do we really have the right to sacrifice our young men, and women in this fashion? And for what are they dying? Are they defending this Nation, or or they trying to make this world safe for Wall Street? Or maybe they are fighting, and dying for someones idealogy.
  
  Statements such I will stay the course, even if I only have the support of "Laura, and Barney" (Barney, his Scottish Terrier), gave me cold chills.
  
  To sum this up, and to answer the question, can this Author be believed, it would appear this book is just a sumation of everythig we have heard in the news. Deception, deception, deception. The war is going bad. No border security, and not enough Troops on the ground to get the job done.
  
  As I heard in a Bush speech, "We should not be using the US Miltary for nation building". Read the book, it is an eye opener, though not a good bedtime story.
  
  
• On Condi Rice's denial of "State Of Denial"
  By A3KJ6JAZPH382D on 2006-10-03
  1. NeoCons: Woodward's book is wrong, Tenet never met with Condi and warned her about Al Qaeda on July 10th (fully two months before 9/11), giving her emphatic warnings of an upcoming attack, but were "blown off" by her. So Woodward's full of it. Don't believe the book.
  
  2. Condi: That's bulldoo, I never met with Tenet, and he certainly never warned me.
  
  3. Neocon sheep: See? Woodward's full of crap!
  
  4. A review of White House Records: Um, the meeting did take place, and she *was* warned...and she *did* blow them off...
  
  5. 9/11 Commission: Oh yeah, we knew about that meeting too. She's lying.
  
  6. Neocons: Dang, we're totally toast. Is it possible we could look any MORE incompetent?
  
  7. Rep Foley: Hey guys, did I just hear you calling my name?
  
  8. The Band: I think we're supposed to just keep playing while this ship sinks, right?
  
  "Officials now agree that on July 10, 2001, Mr. Tenet and his counterterrorism deputy, J. Cofer Black, were so alarmed about an impending Al Qaeda attack that they demanded an emergency meeting at the White House with Ms. Rice and her National Security Council staff."
  
  How do you spell incompetence? R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N.
  
  Wait...lemme check... July 10th, 2001. Nope. Nobody in the White House named Clinton *then*...
  
  
  
  
• not sure what to think
  By A282HM1QF1N2MU on 2006-10-02
  I do not know what to think. I don't trust everything written by Woodward, and this book is no exception.
  I think he gets things wrong, and listening to the many denials of parts of the book, I cannot help but feel this book is not entirely accurate.
  
  There is a much better book on the lead up to the war--"Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq." "Fiasco" was written by someone who has been in that desert hell hole, and who knows the day to day trials of the military. Its an eye witness account of many of the events, and its better than Woodward's book.
  
  That being said, Woodward is not without value. Its getting awfully hard to have any confidence in Bush, Rumsfeld, and the rest of them. They seem to have rushed into Iraq, and they paid no attention to the nagging doubts---and facts---which told them it might be a huge mistake. I cannot help but think Bush was going to invade, no matter what---and we could be paying the cost for a very long time.
  
  I have avoided the temptation to think Bush is a sophmoric frat boy, but I am wondering---from reading about the war--if that's not exactly what he is. I also wonder what qualified him to be President. The man knew some domestic politics, but the very nasty business of the war is beyond him. His father was much more in tune, much more capapble of dealing with the Middle East. But we learn Bush does not consult his father, and his father is not sleeping well at night. He knows Iraq is a godawful mess.
  
  Woodward is not a great writer or stylist. He seems to jump from one topic, or event, to another--with little in the way of transition. I have never found him a pleasure to read. But I read on, like so many others, looking for the tidbits, and facts which might help me make sense of the bloody nightmare we face in Iraq. Like Bush I, I will not be sleeping well at night.
  
  
• Well-researched and thought-provoking
  By A2R9J5LULVKF6T on 2006-10-04
  Bob Woodward is a true American hero, in my eyes. From the early days of Watergate to the current Bush administration, he has kept a relentless watch over the leaders and key figures in American politics, and this current effort is yet another feather in his cap.
  
  This is not to say that the book is perfect - in our current political landscape, it would be nearly impossible to prove an allegation beyond the shadow of a doubt because the system is just absolutely awash in corruption, and many recent scandals have proven all too clearly that our political "leaders" have no shame anymore - when all else fails, they'll just flat out lie.
  
  That said, I think Woodward's approachable and fast-paced book will hopefully prompt those among us who tend to believe more than we should and question less than we should to start paying attention. That our political "leaders" have gone so unchecked for so long, even in the face of blatant and overwhelming belief that they are "leading" us in the wrong direction is a testament to how completely and willingly we have abdicated to them our responsibility to think, question and act in our own, collective national interests.
  
  While some of the revalations in this book are no surprise to anyone who has paid attention to the news over the past few years, seeing it all in one place and from the point of view that not only have we been misled, we've been flat out lied to, is a tough pill to swallow.
  
  I'm certain that the release of the book just prior to midterm elections is no coincidence, and many have decried it as a purely political move. So what? The last several years have shown just how dangerous it is to let politicians go unchecked, especially when it comes to matters of national security and world standing, and as with any performance review given to any of us average joes, when we're not meeting expectations, we should expect to be replaced. If nothing else, I hope this book inspires others to look beyond partisan lines to ask themselves if they've thought enough and, more importantly, done enough to shape the direction of our government and of our country with such a terribly important thing - the war in Iraq and the larger issue of terrorism - hanging in the balance.
  
  Falling victim to the partisan hype around this book is exactly what politicians want - aka "when the message is bad, distract distract distract!" Ignore that hype and just get informed - from this book or wherever else you can. We all have work to do before and in November.
  
  
• Urban Guerilla Warfare - Totally Predictable
  By A1D9Z20TCUH6ZX on 2006-10-01
  Woodward reveals that Henry Kissinger has been the single most frequent outside advisor to Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld since the beginning of this fiasco. Mr. Kissinger privately regards GWB's judgement to be less than perfect: He thinks Bush makes quick decisions without thinking things through, it doesn't occur to him that possibly a plan won't work, and he doesn't plan for contingencies. Nevertheless, Kissinger advises. His latest advise is to stay the course. "The only meaningful exit plan when dealing with insurgents is victory." Hmmmm...insurgents? Did Kissinger forget who invaded who? Does this remind anyone else besides me of Viet Nam?
  
  I guess several thousand GI lives later, we'll have some sort of "peace with honor." We'll have tens of thousands of newly crippled and disabled vets, Iraq's new gov't will eventually fall to the civil war in that country, and in about 20 years, we'll pretty much forget about it.
  
  The overwhelming thread in this book is the dysfunctionality of this administration. Rumsfeld is a bully who antagonizes all his peers and all his war advisors (and doesn't take their advise). Rice is somewhat of an enabler to Bush, although she tries. Cheney still thinks the wmd's will show up. Bush doesn't see that he's getting bad advise, continues to paint the picture as rosier than it is, and refuses to admit mistakes - a habit he may have picked up from Rumsfeld. Quotes from all three (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld) reveal they believe they are doing the right thing - we will see no change of heart.
  
  I see Bush as an excellent cheerleader, perfectly suited to hold the party line developed by his hand-picked advisors. Unfortunately, he has picked poorly, surrounding himself by concrete-thinking hawks who see no gray. Urban guerilla warfare was totally predictable before the first bomb was dropped. Woodward's first two books paint a much rosier picture of the Bush administration. He loses a point from me for not seeing through this group in the first place.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Runaway Train
  By A1TOSV5XXG5J7S on 2006-10-01
  It took Bob Woodward a little while longer than the majority of Americans to see that the Bush administration is reckless and incompetent. Now that he's lost his access to President Bush -- access he had in the first two books in the Bush At War series -- now that he's talked to the White House hands who have been streaming out the this train wreck of a presidency, he's telling the story that America and the world needed to hear all along.
  
  The story? That a small handful of ideologues browbeat the American people and administration moderates into accepting that the invasion of Iraq was necessary and inevitable. And that when evidence that the occupation was failing leaked into the White House that this evidence was squelched, ignored or pushed aside because the reality interfered with the self-induced fantasy that American soldiers were going to be treated as liberators.
  
  Chief of Staff Andrew Card, one of the moderates who saw that Rumsfeld was clearly out of touch with the situation on the ground in Iraq, twice tried to convince Bush -- once with the assistance of Laura Bush -- that Rumsfeld had to go. Instead, he found he was the one who eventually got pushed out the door. Why? Because to fire Rumsfeld was to this administration a tacit admission of failure, or at a minimum, incompetence. So instead of doing the right thing, the reasonable thing in getting rid of Rumsfeld, concern for appearances trumped the correct course of action.
  
  According the Card, there were never any formal meetings held to go over other alternatives to staying in Iraq. Bush instead believed Henry Kissinger, who, recalling the withdrawl from Vietnam under Nixon, told Bush during his frequent visits to the White House that the United States could settle for nothing less than total victory. Indeed, although this administration claims that the "world changed after 9/11," they are shown to be obsessed with fighting off any comparisons to Vietnam. Most recently they have done this by invoking the rhetoric of the "Good War" -- WWII -- with their inflated comparison of Al Queda and jihadists to Germany and Nazis.
  
  According to the neo-con rewrite of history, the U.S. was on the cusp of victory in Vietnam when American leadership knuckled under to limousine liberals, student protestors, lily-livered peaceniks, and treasonous journalists, etc., etc.. Had the US only persisted long enough and strenuously enough, if only the military hadn't been hamstrung by the politicians who had foolishly listened to the anti-war elite, then -- and here's the kernel of the wishful thinking that is the neo-con rewrite -- everything in Vietnam would have turned out just fine.
  
  Sound familiar? That's because the Bush adiministration is fighting the legacy of Vietnam, not Al Queda. According to Woodward, the difference between the admininstrations of Kennedy, Johnson and the Nixon administrations during Vietnam is that during Vietnam there were serious people in the administration who argued that the war was unwinnnable. By contrast, in the Bush adnimistration, the few brave souls like General Zinni, General Garner, Andrew Card and others who dared to speak the truth were quickly put out to pasture.
  
  It's heartening to read that there were some Americans who attempted to stop the runaway locomotive that was the Bush administration roaring toward disaster in Iraq. It's also heartening to hear there were those who tried to remove Rumsfeld's dead hand from the throttle. But still, one can't help but wish after reading STATE OF DENIAL, that this train had never left the station.
  
  
• Woodward's an Enemy Combatant
  By A2QD4VQQGZDLBP on 2006-10-02
  What will become of Bob Woodward now that he's violated Dictator Bush's newly passed edicts? By attacking Bush in his new book, Woodward's supporting and complicit with the enemy, is he not? Why not write a book about the enemy Bin Laden? Could it be there's a greater threat then Bin Laden afterall?
  
  With the Constitution under fire, it's just a matter of time before Fuer Bush throws Woodward into one of his newly built Halliburton prison camps. The law now says Bush can imprison anyone he wants, and even torture them.
  
  There's a real psychopath sicko at the top of leadership of our country who needs to be put behind bars for his war crimes along with his pal pedophile Foley and the rest of these frauds who support his corrupt, criminal Administration. Bush is a murderer of thousands, a man who condones policies of torture against innocent people. He is just as bad as Saddam Hussein, if not worse.
  
  Like pedophile former congressional leader Foley, Bush hides behind a fraud image which also reflects itself in his being so out of touch with reality in his handling of the war. Bush is nothing but a con and a hard core criminal - and that is the true reality of President G.W. Bush and what he's all about.
  
  
• Another depressing, true book about the Bush administration!
  By A7EJERNB7IK3Z on 2006-10-03
  This is just another one of a myriad of books out there that delineates the utter incompetency and failure of the Bush administration. I won't go into the details of the book, or the many factual points made (as they have been gone over in many other reviews), but suffice it to say that this one incompetent dyslexic dufus has set us back as a nation bigtime! From not signing the Kyoto protocol, to blatantly and irresponsibly ignoring the key 9/11 memo, to invading Iraq (that had nothing to do with 9/11) based on lies and misinformation, to Abu Ghraib, to essentially ignoring the Katrina tragedy- the man is a disaster for the United States. If Bush was a corporate CEO, his butt would have been fired a long time ago!
  
  
• Woodward Comes to Grips With a Scarifying Expose of the Administrative Vacuity Behind the Iraqi Conflict
  By A13E0ARAXI6KJW on 2006-10-01
  For much of his compelling narrative, Bob Woodward's new book comes across as a compendium of previously published exposés on the Bush administration's post-9/11 discomfiting series of judgment lapses and their fatalistic consequences. However, what is revelatory this time is first and foremost, Woodward's obvious disillusionment with what he previously considered in his last two books as a well-run strategy on managing the Iraqi conflict. Second, he elaborates on the amount of in-fighting occurring among Bush's most trusted advisers to a degree I have not read in similar books of this ilk. For instance, Dick Cheney's monomaniacal obsession with finding non-existent WMDs is well known but not the level of isolation he has experienced with his stance. Bush comes off comparatively lightly, though Woodward corroborates presumptions that he is not a leader dwelling on the details of his policies. The most intriguing connection Bush revealed is the ongoing counsel he receives from Henry Kissinger, Nixon's legendary Secretary of State who is plying the President with what he views as lessons learned from the Vietnam War.
  
  Even so, the man most criticized in Woodward's account is Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld whose hands-off handling of the Iraqi occupation is a lesson in destructive delegation. The author vividly shows the diminishing credibility Rumsfeld has with the military officials in developing any kind of victory strategy in the Middle East. Moreover, the friction with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was enough for Bush to order Rumsfeld like an unruly child to answer her phone calls. However, Rumsfeld's insolence could be perceived from the outset as former CIS director George Tenet states that the Secretary of Defense questioned the evidence that could have led to the capture of Osama bin Laden prior to 9/11. Colin Powell questioned Rumsfeld's judgment at this point, although the combined efforts of Powell and Tenet were not enough to convince the rest of the Bush cabinet to support adding more troops to the Iraqi conflict when they were most desperately needed in the fall of 2003. Despite the warning of top Iraqi adviser Robert D. Blackwill, there was no action taken to quell the growing insurgency which the White House continued to downplay.
  
  What's more, there was little interest in developing a plan once the conflict was over and no vision of what a postwar Iraq would look like politically. Consequently, Woodward discloses recent reports forecasting escalating insurgency in the area since Bush's foreign policy strategy has allowed the Shia to fester in Iraq, a fiery situation compounded by the militant emergence of the Hezbollah and growing heat from Shiite-dominated Iran and Saudi Arabia where the Sunnis maintain power and influence. In the meantime, Rumsfeld continues in his pivotal role despite the internal consternation because Bush is most interested in maintaining a united front to the world. Clearly, Woodward shatters that image in his most thorough, journalistic manner. As with his other books, Woodward gathers a plethora of quotes from people he has identified only as senior advisers, but this time, Bush and Cheney refused to cooperate. Even quotes attributed to Bush's parents illustrate a grave concern for the consequences of the Iraqi conflict. Recent releases covering the same players and topics have been essential reading, such as David Corn and Michael Isikoff's "Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War" and Ron Suskind's "The One Percent Doctrine". Add Woodward's book as another one that continues the unlayering process with brutalizing vitality.
  
  
• George Will's state of denial
  By A1OQNVH2R1NIX0 on 2006-10-04
  Not a "dysfunctional government" says George Will about this book and the Bush administration in his editorial of October 3.. The Woodward book provides "just a glimpse of government in general", any government according to Will. Will's own state of denial causes him to offer this lame excuse for our current dysfunctional government which is truly "Katrina between hard covers".
  There is no single smoking gun in Woodward's 522 pages of text and notes(which few Amazon reviewers have read). There are a few heroes like retired Lt Gen Garner, selected to lead reconstruction, and General Abizaid, along with a team of experts they selected to work with the Iraqis postwar. There is a whole herd of goats led by the clueless Cheney and Rumsfeld who emasculated Garner's teams.
  Rumsfeld calls for removal of the expression "clear, hold, and build" from a Bush speech. "Clear we're doing," he says. "It's up to the Iraqis to build." When presented with the costs for reconstruction, Rumsfeld was not concerned. "They(Iraqis) are going to spend their money rebuilding their country," he said.
  Since the `clearing' that Rumsfeld was doing involved dismantling Iraq's government, army, and infrastructure, he and Bush could hardly expect Iraqi George Washingtons to rise, Phoenix like, from the ashes as Bush was expecting.
  It is remarkable that our fledgling nation of 3 million could produce leaders like Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson, and others to lead it. Today with 300 million we get Bush, Rumsfeld, Rove, Cheney, Perle, Chertoff, and Michael Brown.
  
  
• A Non-Review Review...
  By AZ1VII50CHK63 on 2006-10-08
  Comment on the book itself:
  
  If you have ever seen Woodward in a televised interview, he writes with the same tone he speaks with. His writing style lends itself to communicating facts and ideas- but not much else. This book is not entertaining, there are no "Ann Coulter" moments. Nowhere is night skiing or steaks on the electric grill mentioned.
  
  What it does do is outline a pattern of events vetted against multiple sources which outline the state of affairs in the White House, Iraq, and sometimes the international community. It does not so much criticise the administration directly, but rather reports events and lets the reader decide.
  
  It is essentially a 500 page newspaper article which is not commentary, not partisan, and absolutely not the writing of a pundit.
  
  Why read it?
  
  Regardless of my opinions of the content of this book, it might be important for someone to point out why one would read a book by Woodward and give it any credence or weight.
  
  Bob Woodward was one of the journalists involved in exposing Richard Nixon's transgressions as president. His partner in this was Carl Bernstein. They wrote for the Washington Post.
  
  Their series of articles in the 1970's led to the indictment of 40 white house officials, and ultimately the resignation of Richard Nixon.
  
  Why would I remind you of this?
  
  There is far too much "opinion" reporting in the press these days because many news outlets report news 24 hours a day. To fill that time, the traditional back page editorial found in a traditional newspaper now is multiplied many times through debate and political speech as "entertainment". Entertainment isn't a good way to be informed.
  
  Woodward will not entertain you.
  
  That being the case- please avail yourself of his reporting. And alternatively, also read some of the other political authorship by the many pundits and commentators out there.
  
  Then make up your own mind.
  
  In a country where Ann Coulter will probably outsell Bob Woodward on a book to book basis, you owe it to yourself to be as informed as possible. That means reading viewpoints you do not agree with, and letting those viewpoints challenge your own.
  
  Woodward is a stone cold journalist.
  
  
• This is Bob Woodward, not some hack reporter
  By A2JV8PH4NGQPJ6 on 2006-10-18
  I'm sick of reading negative reviews of State of Denial and I pity the people who refuse to see the facts. Don't label me a liberal because I don't respect either party at this point. The truth is that Woodward helped to bring down Tricky Dick who was in fact guilty. At least Nixon had a grip on reality and had the guts to resign. After Watergate, Woodward could have coasted on his reputation for the rest of his life. Instead, he did what any responsible journalist should do and reported that the present administration has been misleading the American people. The only thing that has improved in Iraq and Aghanistan is war profiteering and ultimately Bush is reponsible.
  
  Typically, conservatives will read the book, laugh at how superior they are to liberals, and shrug it off. Liberals will read the book, pick another loser Presidential candidate, and feel bad about the waste of money, resources, and human lives.
  
  
• Well written for the most part
  By A39MV4GP78QB4P on 2006-10-01
  No matter the topic you enjoy reading about, the book needs to be well writtne. The kind you lay in bed at night reading until your eyes are blurred because you're so tired.. just one more page... just one more page.. just one more chapter... Intelligently written too, the framework makes it an easy and fast read.
  
  
• Something Missing
  By A2QWOMNUO1WJI3 on 2006-10-03
  Bob Woodward is without question in my opinion one of our greatest living reporters, which is why I guess I felt a bit disappointed with 'State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III'. Straight to the point, there simply appears to be something missing from this expose. I can't put my finger on it . . . yes, the delusion, the conspiracy, the lack of credible information . . . essentially the Washington political circle and circus at its best and in full swing are presented, and Woodward does not miss a beat is attempting to hold the players in the administration accountable while focussing on the War in Iraq. Still, there's a feeling that the slants of objectivity were sloped a bit. Nevertheless, the tacit insight on DR were, though not new, insightful all the same. This is an important read . . . but be mindful that politics like writing are based on the perspectives or 'takes' of even the most objective material.
  
  
• A potential coup de grace
  By A6FIAB28IS79 on 2006-10-05
  Predictably, Woodward's book is being criticized by many for its lack of "originality." Because Rich, Isikoff, Ricks, and Suskind have recently covered much of the same ground, presumably Woodward has no right to take up a similar refrain. (The same could have been said about virtually all books following Richard Clarke's still revelatory first-hand account, "Against All Enemies.")
  
  Thank goodness he's doing so. His is still the most prominent voice among the many that are trying to awaken the public to the extent of the American folly and the combination of pride, arrogance and ignorance that got us into Iraq to stay. Just witness the stir the book has caused in Washington, where it's one of the few accounts that's being taken seriously by our current administration.
  
  Moreover, the book is "original" for Woodward in that it represents a reversal of his previous appraisal of W. Bush's leadership. If only our righteous, blind and inflexible leaders could open their eyes to the evidence and change course instead of continuing to serve some "absolute principle" (see John Dean's "Conservatives Without Conscience"), perhaps we could begin to repair some of the damage that we've inflicted throughout the world on a mission that, far from defeating terrorists, has increased their numbers and left my children and grandchildren with a lingering if not permanent legacy of fear and dread in a world that's more polarized and dangerous than the one prior to 9/11.
  
  What's unfortunate is the Foley scandal that has upstaged, at least for the moment, Woodward's important book on the news shows and in the headlines. "State of Denial" need not impress all of the fans of Iraq "war" literature or placate the enemies of Woodward's ego to be judged a work that's absolutely crucial to the enlightenment of the State.
  
  
• This book was Spectacular
  By A2PR69Z9QVA8VO on 2006-10-03
  "Election season traderous tripe!" ... I think dumbo wanted to say traitorous. So typically right-wing frothing at the mouth he couldn't spell. tisk tisk
  I have read Bob Woodward's previous two books, and strangely enough this kind of fits a logical progression. Sadly. I would say I enjoyed it, but only in its clarity in putting pieces together. Pieces that should be obvious to most. Obviously however seeing the one star reviews it is not. Brainwashing prevails. State of Denial is for that an excellent title.
  
  
  
• well written though a little late
  By A29K7DQRDQM2V5 on 2006-10-10
  Woodward pretty much lives up to the hype, laying out how the Bush administration's certitude and arrogance about attacking a country, culture and people they knew very little about has led us to the mess we're in now.
  
  In contrast to his earlier books on the administration, Woodward shows Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Powell and Rice beyond the talking points and spin. Bush is depicted as intellectually lazy, Rumsfield a pompous bully, Cheney frighteningly determined to take the country into war, and Powell reluctant but unwilling to ultimately stand up for what is right. Rice comes off as more complex. Many who dealt with the administration consider her weak and perhaps even incompetent in her role and Woodward presents those opinions here. But he also shows that perhaps she has given more thought to the repurcussions of the war than her sometimes seemingly insensitive public pronouncements suggest. Predictably, the Bush administration, which had become accustomed to Woodward's early positive reporting, has gone on the attack.
  
  Although I'm giving this 5 stars, I have mixed feelings about this book mainly because I'm disappointed that a reporter with Woodward's history and experience didn't uncover the facts that he presents in his latest book much sooner. Others, such as Seymour Hersh and Ron Suskind, were faster to express skeptism about the administration's motives and decisions. It is almost as if Woodward is playing catch up.
  
  

• Plan of Attack
• The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008
• Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq
• Bush at War
• The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream (Vintage)