Rating: 
Summary: Alice in Wonderland, Revisionist, Shallow, with Gems
Review:
There is an Alice in Wonderland quality to this book--or more properly stated, to the conversations that are quoted among the principals. Their wandering short-hand conversations, the degree to which the President is mis-led about our capabilities, the inability of the Secretary of Defense to answer a direct question, always having to go back to his office for an answer--the entire book is, as one reviewer suggests, practically a recount of a handful of recollections about scattered conversations, as if the center of the world were one room in the White House, and nothing outside those walls really mattered. It is also somewhat revisionist--as I recall from published news at the time, all of the principals wanted to delay the taking of Kabul until the spring, and it was President Putin of Russia, speaking directly to President Bush, who made the case, based on his superior intelligence sources on the ground, for how quickly Kabul would fall, leading to the US acceptance of rapid advances by the Afghan warlords. The absence of this essential and openly known fact casts doubt on the entire process of writing the book, and how information was researched and selected for inclusion.There are, however, some major gems that make a careful reading of this book very worthwhile and I list them for consideration by other readers: 1) The Directorate of Intelligence does not appear as a listed player--CIA special operations rather than CIA analysis appears to have been the DCI's best card to play; 2) The clandestine service, as Dewey Claridge notes in concluding his "Spy for All Seasons," died in the 1990's, with only 12 case officers in one year's class--the book misrepresents the increase from 12 to 120 as stellar--it was actually a return to the norm before a series of mediocre leaders destroyed the Directorate of Operations; 3) The CIA had been "after" bin Laden for five years prior to 9-11, the DCI even "declaring war" on him, to zero effect. Worse, post 9-11 investigations determined that bin Laden had been planning the 9-11 attack for two years without any substantive hint being collected by U.S. intelligence--and at the end of the book, Rumsfeld reflects on how the three major surprises against the U.S. prior to 9-11 not only happened without U.S. intelligence detecting them, but we did not learn of them for five to thirteen years *after the fact* (page 320); 4) Presidential-level communications stink--the Secretary of State could not talk to the President when flying back for seven hours from Latin America, and the National Security Advisor could not get a reliable secure connection to the President from her car right in Washington, D.C. 5) The Secret Service idea of security for Presidential relatives in a time of crisis is to take them to the nearest Federal Center--the kind that got blown up in Oklahoma. 6) Throughout the discussions, it was clear to the principals that the U.S. military is designed to find and destroy fixed physical targets with obvious signatures; it cannot do--it is incompetent at--finding mobile targets, whether vehicles or individuals (cf. page 174)...and of course as General Clark documented in his book, and David Halberstam repeats in his most recent tome, and as the principals learned again vis a vis Afghanistan, the U.S. Army does not do mountains. There are three remarkable aspects of this story, only one even remotely hinted at in the book: we failed to get bin Laden. The CIA went to Afghanistan with the right orders: "bin Laden dead or alive." They promptly forgot their orders and settled for spending $70M to play soldier. The two stories that are not told in this book, but are clearly apparent: 1) Russia saved the day, both for the CIA and for the Department of Defense; and 2) Saudi Arabia never came up as a serious problem that needed to be dealt with sooner than later. Finally, and this only became clear to me after the early months of 2003 when the obsession of a few people in the Administration brought the world to a crisis over Iraq, the book provides really excellent documentation of how a tiny minority, led by Paul Wolfowitz, basically pushed the President to treat Iraq as an alternative to substantive action on global terrorists networks, and the book documents how the uniformed leadership of the Pentagon clearly opposed this line of thinking that is unsupported by intelligence, either on Iraq, or on the relative threat of Iraq (not imminent) in relation to many other threats that are both more imminent and more costly if not addressed now. This is a useful book, worthy of reading, but the real story with all the details will not be known for some time.
Rating: 
Summary: The best book on this subject I could hope for
Review: Bush At War is respectful yet unbiased. Hard core Republicans may be annoyed by some divisions exposed in the Bush White House, but liberals will be more frustrated to learn that Bush is much smarter and wiser than his critics like to pretend. If you want to believe that those in charge really don't know what they are doing, read Bill Mahr's book instead. But if you can accept the idea that Bush is a bright guy, this may be the book for you.
Rating:
Summary: Objective eye-opener for the left and right
Review: "Bush at War" provides an in-depth account of Bush and his advisors acting during an American crisis. Short on analysis and long on actual accounts, this book will disappoint closed-minded left-wingers who prefer to think of Bush and his advisors as power-hungry morons. How else would you explain the low scores the book received from a few reviewers below, who criticised Woodward for kissing up to the President. Anyone who knows anything about Woodward understands that he is anything but a kiss-up. Those of you looking for cheap shots should steer clear of "Bush at War" and read an Al Franken book. Those looking for an in-depth account of Bush as the President of America should read "Bush at War."
Rating:
Summary: PLEASANTLY SURPRISED
Review: I expected this to be just another biased book written by a kiss up reporter. But as I read this book I was reminded that Bob Woodward has never been a "kiss up" reporter. In fact, Bob Woodward is in a class by himself when it comes to gaining access to the inside scoop on Washington. And this book is no different. And Bush doesn't pull any punches either. He shoots straight from the hip with what he believes and what his intentions and motives are in regards to terrorism and Tyrants. Great Book. Another book I would like to recommend that attacks Terrorism and doesn't pull any punches is "I Talked To God And He Wants To Talk To You". Except, that is not from a political point of view. It is instead from a spiritual perspective. Interesting read.
Rating: 
Summary: Slapdash and unprofessional
Review: Woodward uses his first rate access to poor effect. The book is disorganized, lacks perspective and is bereft of any level of analysis. Woodward's ability to get senior people to talk is unparalleled. It is a pity that he makes no effort to dig beyond what his contacts tell him. Worse, Woodward doesn't bother to add any historical or geopolitical context to the actions he describes. The author's tendency to describe the thoughts and feelings of the participants as though he was a mind reader is suspect at best - and should be left out of any serious work of non-fiction.
Rating: 
Summary: RX
Review: The real deep throat ought to ingest some of the purple pill!
Rating:
Summary: Excellent...a book you won't want to put down
Review: Woodward's Bush at War is one of those books that you won't want to put down until you finish it. I'd describe it as an insightful summary of post-9/11 events at the presidential and cabinet level of the U.S. government. I am an avid reader of the news, and this book recapped much of what I'd read. Characterizations of Cheney and Rumsfield were in synch with my expectations and provided some additional background and context on these two. For me, the characterization of Rice was very interesting. From reading the news I hadn't developed an idea of her role and relationship with the president. Also, the characterization of Powell and his interplay with Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield was good. I don't want to ruin the book for anyone, but one section was very interesting as it described a CIA agent with a suitcase of $100 bills totalling $3 million dollars arriving in Afghanistan and how he handed it out to warlords. Also stuck in my mind is the Epilogue, particularly the very last sentence! Yikes! I won't tell you...read it and find out yourself. If you have any interest in current events, post-9/11 events, Bush, and his cabinet...then you will find this book a great read. Recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Not one-sided...
Review: For those who say this is some sort of Bush administration propaganda: What book are you reading? There is a lot in here that the Bush administration, I would think, would not like you to know. In fact, Woodward points out that during the early weeks of the Afghan war the administration was very unsure of their strategy, which was going very badly at the time. It was only after the CIA insisted that the military switch from "pounding sand" to hitting front-line units did the U.S. begin to succeed. I cannot imagine that the Bush adminstration likes the idea that disagreements between the CIA and the military, Powell and Rumsfeld, etc., etc. are being aired publicly. The revelation that, even as the war was underway, the CIA and the military were claiming that the other department was "in-charge" of the operation is staggering in its implication. The only reason why this book comes across as positive for the President is because Bush showed amazing nerve and strength of character. Bush had patience and was not discouraged by temporary setbacks and negative press. He did not let CNN run the war.
Rating: 
Summary: useful, but not engrossing
Review: sticking mainly to a chronological reporting of events as opposed to thoughtful analysis this book is useful if you are interested in the details about what trnaspires behind the scenes when a president decides to go to war. it was reassuring to see bush is not a complete imbecile but his brand of texas macho "get em dead or alive" was a bit unerving. perhaps this book would have been better off having been written a few years down the line when the consequces of our war on terrorism can be more fully understood and placed in their proper context.
Rating:
Summary: No question as to who is in charge. Pres. Bush. Also
Review: no question that the right man and the right team are leading America and the Free World right now. All those jokes about the President being a "moron" and not up to the job are long gone. And consider the risk that the President and all the top people took in consenting to do this book. Woodward might have been able to make them look bad, but they agreed to do it anyway. Amazing access. What an open society we have. And you can be sure UBL and Saddam have read it too. And they know what they are up against and they can't like their odds. And think about this: Can anyone even imagine Al Gore running this war now? We got a taste of what it would have been like when Sen. H. Clinton said we should stop bombing during Ramadan of last year. Yeah, right. A little slow in the middle. Fred Barnes points out how Woodward misses the importance of October 30 and 31 but otherwise a great effort.
| 
