Rating: 
Summary: Thank God he Won the Election After All, It Seems
Review: I come from a line of party stalwarts dating back to Lincoln's day, and when the Higgensworth genome is finally mapped, we will surely learn that Republicanism is hardwired in us. For this reason my own vote during the Presidential election was preordained. But while I saw a clear need for change after eight years of Diet Roosevelt in the White House, I can't say that I was excited about the candidate. Hereditary leadership seems a bit too British for a modern country like ours, and the abundance of horribly timed half-second pauses in Young Bush's diction hinted ominously of mild retardation. My worries deepened after the inauguration, and by summertime I feared that we had Republican Carter on our hands ' a drawling one-termer who would later be remembered as kindly but inept. My perspective changed markedly nine days after the terrorist attacks, when he gave one of the finest speeches in Presidential history. We subsequently saw the masterful wooing of a frightening Pakistani regime, the birth of an enduring partnership with our longtime arch-adversary Russia, and the almost immediate rout of hostile forces in the Waterloo of both the British and Soviet empires. However like many people, I credited the cabinet with the war's immaculate conduct, not the President himself. I believed that Gore (or 'Decaffeinated Diet Roosevelt' as we might call him) would have been a more intelligent President, but would have had a much lesser cabinet, and would have been too much of a know-it-all to listen to them anyway. We were therefore lucky to have Bush, I reasoned, because he had both a great cabinet and the humility to listen to them and let them more or less run the show. This book has completely changed that viewpoint. Bob Woodward had extraordinary access to every player in the Bush White House, and paints a detailed and authoritative picture of the 100 days following the terrorist attacks. We learn that Rice, Tenet, Powell, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the others are indeed a tremendous crew, however they absolutely follow the course set by their helmsman. There was a remarkable lack of consensus within the cabinet on a number of key policy matters throughout the early days of the crisis, and it was always Bush making the tough choices, and, it turns out, the right ones. Bush is also shown to be personally courageous (almost to the point of recklessness) in remaining in the White House or going ahead with certain trips despite hard warnings of specific threats against him. Woodward is the man who brought down the Nixon presidency by exposing the Watergate scandal. He has also written very critically of the Reagan administration and glowingly of John Belushi, and as such is anything but a Republican apologist. For this reason even hardened fans of Diet Roosevelt, Lady Diet Roosevelt, and Decaffeinated Diet Roosevelt have to give credence to this glowing report card of the Bush administration. My main critique is that it's written in a painfully sterile manner. Although Woodward is covering the most dramatic American crisis since Pearl Harbor, he does so with all the verve of a scientist writing up a routine reaction in a Petri dish. I expect he does this in part to avoid the charge of falling too madly for the subject of his portrait.
Rating: 
Summary: Woodward is disappointing
Review: Woodward has betrayed his jounalistic duty----so frequent these days among his colleagues. This would be ordinary and not worth the comment if not for his status as one of the most respected and influential investigative reporters in America. Woodward is an icon. He is admired across the political spectrum for his tenacity and stubborn adherence to getting at the truth no matter the risk. Once a valuable investigator and
useful muckraker---Woodward exposed the intrigue in the Nixon administration---he has gradually turned from hardhitting exposure to gossip and narative. Bob Woodward seems
to have turned novelist. To quote Frank Rich of the New York Times, who listed a number of Woodward's omissions in a recent column: "The truly sensitive issues for the Bush administration are those that are given short shrift in the book or left out entirely. We hear no inside accounts of its failure to track down the anthrax terrorists." Even the fact that after instant blame was thrust toward certain of the Middle East, "John Ashcroft was not able to show proof of guilt or to arrest a single terrorist during his post-911 mass roundups goes unnoticed." Nothing of the many serious unanswered questions regarding 9/11 and the strange and possibly incriminating events associated with the White House are explored. Rather, Woodward is curiously flattering instead of hardhitting, and does nothing to inform serious readers of material they should be being provided from real investigative
reporting.
Rating:
Summary: Woodward is disappointing
Review: Woodward has betrayed his jounalistic duty----so frequent these days among his colleagues. This would be ordinary and not worth the comment if not for his status as one of the most respected and infuential investigative reporters in America. Woodward is an icon. He is admired across the political spectrum for his tenacity and stubborn adherence to getting at the truth no matter the risk. Once a valuable investigator and
useful muckraker---Woodward exposed the intrigue in the Nixon administration---he has gradually turned from hardhitting exposure to gossip and narative. Bob Woodward seems
to have turned novelist. To quote Frank Rich of the New York Times, who listed a number of Woodward's omissions in a recent column: "The truly sensitive issues for the Bush administration are those that are given short shrift in the book or left out entirely. We hear no inside accounts of its failure to track down the anthrax terrorists." Even the fact that after instant blame was thrust toward certain of the Middle East, "John Ashcroft was not able to show proof of guilt or to arrest a single terrorist during his post-911 mass roundups goes unnoticed." Nothing of the many serious unanswered questions regarding 9/11 and the strange and possibly incriminating events associated with the White House are explored. Rather, Woodward is curiously flattering instead of hardhitting, and does nothing to inform serious readers of material they should be being provided from real investigative
reporting.
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding "insiders" view of the war on terror
Review: Woodward has put together another outstanding "insiders" view of the war on terror, and all of its problems. He details the political and military problems in responding to the September 11th attacks and also how President Bush and his team fought through setbacks in order to hammer out a strategy to begin the war on terror. What is especially interesting is President Bush's seeming outstanding control of the situation from the first days, he does not come out of this book as weak or indecisive at all but as a very strong leader who knew what had to be done. The most interesting point in this book however are the internal discussions about extending the war on terror and how Iraq was on the table and pushed by Vice President Chaney almost from the beginning. This book is necessary for anyone wishing to gain insight on what the discussions inside the Bush administration on the decision to go to war against Iraq now must be like.
My only small gripe as a historian are the complete lack of footnotes and citations by Woodward. This book would be much more useful to future historians and readers if Woodward would cite the sources for his information.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent
Review: This is great, fast, interesting reading. Highly recommended if you're interested in learning about both current events or the inside life of a US president.
Rating:
Summary: Who would have guessed that Bush was a hands-on policy wonk?
Review: The main body of this book covers the period from 9-11 to the fall of Kabul in December 2001. However, the best part is the forty-page Epilogue, which covers Powell's being forced to make an ill-advised trip to mediate the Palestinian crisis, as well as the internal dynamics of the administration's decision to invade Iraq. In this book, Woodward gives the reader a thorough grasp of the interpersonal relations at the top rung of the Bush administration. Much of the book focuses on the "Principals' Committee," consisting of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, and others. Cheney and Rumsfeld are loosely allied with each other. Powell is out of synch with the others' hawkish orientation and is increasing isolated - in his case, being Secretary of State doesn't count for much. I had always thought highly of Condoleeza Rice, but in this book she comes across as smarmy and sycophantic. In one situation, Bush asks her for her opinion, but she told Woodward she didn't know how to respond because she didn't already know Bush's preference. Bush comes across as a hands-on policy wonk, the complete opposite of the "doofus-cowboy" persona often attributed to him. If this book had been written by anyone else, it would be seen as a whitewash, but let's not forget that this author is the Bob Woodward, well known for his liberal politics, who brought down the Nixon administration. Be forewarned that Woodward's writing style is not for everyone. Some reviewers were unhappy about the lack of analysis, but in most of his books, Woodward's style is to report who said what, and leave the analysis to each reader. Woodward never uses direct quotes unless he's absolutely sure of the exact wording, and instead relies on paraphrases. The end result can be a bit bland and yes, even boring at times - look elsewhere for snappy dialogue. But after finishing the book, I felt I had been in the room when the key decisions were made.
Rating: 
Summary: Give me a break
Review: Well, we can be sure of one thing. Bob Woodward won't be bringing down anymore governments. He has completely bought into the back-scratching revolving-door Washington set that doesn't want to offend anyone, lest you be taken off the good party list for the next year. He manages to write this without making anyone look even a little bad. His images of Bush are like the old Saturday Night Live skit, where Reagan ushers out the little girl scout from the photo op and starts talking in Russian to Gorbachev. Bush even interviewed with Woodward, and his self-serving accounts go unchallenged by Woodward. This book is an embarrassment, and Woodward should be ashamed. I am a former fan who will not be purchasing anymore of these boilerplates.
Rating:
Summary: Our fearless leader
Review: Taken at face value, this book is a disappointment. Here's the story of the century, a true-life Tom Clancy novel, but I'm left wishing that someone with more talent than Bob Woodward had been anointed to tell it. I agree with the readers who complain that he managed to make the story boring. The book lacks a clear dramatic structure and is riddled with grammatical errors. It comes across as a quick, opportunistic hack job. If Bob Woodward is a born storyteller, the Muse must have left him sometime after Watergate. But still, the book is worth a read, whatever your political persuasion. It certainly answers the major question I had. Is Bush really calling the shots? Apparently so, according to Woodward. But is he a wise and knowledgeable leader? This is a subject for debate, and the exercise is more interesting if we've read what Woodward has to say. Because Woodward was granted ninety minutes of interviews with Bush, which he wove into semi-fictionalized dialog, the book also provides a wealth of material for linguistic and psychological exegesis. The endless quotes that take the form of short, declarative sentences and assert things like "This is what a president does. He considers all the evidence." are entirely believable; the ones containing the word "angst" are not. That's a hard word for someone whose favorite book is The Hungry Caterpillar.
Rating:
Summary: September 11 - Why?
Review: If September 11 has opened up the worlds eyes to anything, it's the fact that we are all one people. No one can debate the tragedy of the thousands of innocent human lives lost on this horrific day in history. The worst part from my point of view is that people seem to be blinded fom the real facts of many historical events that occur without our knowledge. So many people have asked why? I'm not saying anybody can justify this act of "terror" & would never attempt to do so. But people can look at the other side of the story to find a clearer, more informed response as to why? The question is do the people really want to know? September 11 really has shown how vulnerable we all are & how much we rely on the "mass media" to convey details of such a horrendous events without bias. So many of us consume whole heartedly the shady facts these journalists & corporate networks give us. We have faith we are getting "complete" coverage, when instead we're seemingly handed a platter with all you can eat on one side & only a few bread crumbs on the other. This does not educate us on how these "people" or how these events evolved into being. Sadly because of political propaganda fueled by greed, power & other hidden agenda's we are not exposed to the truth in its naked form. If American's support a democracy it's time to start uncovering & investigating both sides of the story so its people are openly informed, as it is their right to be. In fact it's the people that need to demand that they are openly informed on both their domestic & international issues. I'm by no means a scholar; I'm just your average Joe & I know no country is perfect. But I urge anyone with an open mind to look at the other side of the story & then form their "own" more "educated" opinion. The only way to improve our world for "all" of mankind is to educate our people. I myself am only just starting to educate myself on these issues & I'll be honest before September 11 I was blind to many of the realities in this world we live in. We live in delicate times & we need to find a solution to this war on terror with out simply invading & labeling nations an "axis of evil". This does more to play on people fears than educate them. This does more to breed ignorance rather than insight. It's easy to for a person to drown in patriotism, what's even harder is to acknowledge the facts. How can condemning the people who would like to exercise their "free right" to debate an opinion that's contrary to "popular" belief, be an excercise of democracy? I've only just began reading some well informed anti-war essay's written by a man by the name of "Mumia Abu-Jamal". I'm sure some of you may have heard of this man & his name alone will probably make you jump to many assumptions & conclusions. I urge anyone who wants to educate themselves on another insightful point of view, one the mass media "isn't" offering, to read Mumia's anti-war commentaries. They are well written, well informed & he does make an effort to quote relevant sources as often as possible to support his case. The website is www.mumia2000.org Once you've finished reading his commentaries maybe you could take the time to review the real facts of his case as well & ask yourself honestly why there's a block on the "corporate media" to uncover the "true facts" of his case. The true questions with no answers? (e.g the courts failure to acknowldege or even review another mans in-depth confession to the crime itself) I'm not pretending to know a lot about this issue at hand but I feel no shame in practicing my free right to educate myself & look at the other side of the story. "He who lives his life in part solitude, will not easily become a victim of mass suggestion" Albert Einstein
Rating:
Summary: Disappointing propaganda
Review: Bob Woodward is a laudable and insightful investigative journalist. Or at least was. 30 years ago. Dunring the Nixon administration. The material assembled in this book is by no means groundbreaking, and is merely a rewriting of what was available in the post-Sept 11 press. Reading this book gave me an aftertaste of propaganda, or, at least, the feeling that Woodward wrote it to obtain the favours of a number of important people, members of the current Bush administration.
| 
