Rating: 
Summary: An insightful, unbiased account of the White House
Review: Read this book with an open mind and you will discover that it offers a lot of insight into the workings of the White House after September 11th. I am no Bob Woodward fan, but he does a great job in this book of simply giving us a perspective (as opposed to his typical dirt-exposing) on the Bush presidency.Unfortunately, too many have apparently let their seething hatred for Bush to even pay attention to this book. It's a timely book to read, as well, because it directly contradicts the books of both Paul O'Neil and Richard Clarke. Bush truly was in charge and made decisions for himself, and truly was focused on Al Qaeda prior to 9/11.
Rating:
Summary: Bush at War in Afghanistan
Review: I picked up Bob Woodward's "Bush at War" when I was looking for an objective telling of how Bush got into and approached the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. There are too many partisan accounts that say Bush is all right or all wrong and I was looking for less politics and more information. This book provides that in great and sometimes tedious detail. This book is focused on the period from just before 9-11-01 to prior to the Bush administration's going to war in Iraq, but after the Congress gave the Bush administration the authority to unilaterally do what it felt was required there. The book ends with Bush awaiting UN enforcement of the many Iraq-related resolutions. This is 90% focused on Afghanistan, NOT IRAQ. Richard Clarke's highly critical book on Bush and his alleged lack of attention to terrorism prior to 9/11 came out while I was reading this book Surprisingly enough, Clarke is not mentioned at all in the Bush at War book in spite of his being the head of the Counter-Terrorism office in the White House. The first quarter of "Bush at War" did a nice job of taking me back to the emotional shock of the Trade Tower attacks and the virtually universal feeling in America of patriotism and joining together. The remainder of the story describes in repetitive detail the frequent meetings among the White House principals, (with and without Bush) regarding what kind of response was appropriate, what was achievable and when could it be done. Logistically they found it difficult to reopen old intelligence contacts in Afghanistan and get men and material over there. I was surprised out how difficult the logistics are in fighting a war all the way around the world. Woodward does not clear up the question of whether Bush was on point regarding terrorism prior to 9/11 but makes it clear that it was taken very seriously after, to the point where the subject honed Bush's vision of what he wants to accomplish with his Presidency. Some key points from the book. *Iraq is discussed in the White House early on after 9/11 but is not the main topic, Al-Quada is and the Taliban's support of them. The Taliban is not even the prime initial target for retaliation; in fact they are offered an out by turning over Bin Laden and the rest of the leadership. *This book does not make it clear that an Iraq invasion was on the Bush agenda upon inauguration. However, Rumsfeld suggests possibly attacking Iraq or somewhere in the Far East to demonstrate the far reach of the US military and to scare the terrorists, especially when it becomes clear that the military had no initial plan or assets to exploit in Afghanistan. No one else went for that idea. *Bush comes off as decisive, inclusive and even open-minded during the discussion phases. He is heavily involved in the "you are for us, or you are against us" position on terrorism that came out early after 9/11. He is involved in tactical discussions and keeps the team focused and confident. *Cheney and Rumsfeld are the uber-hawks, pushing the ultimately prevailing position that the possibility of a devastating second terrorist attack against the US, either domestically or internationally, required the adoption of the declared preemption policy. They are the prime proponents behind the decision to eventually invade Iraq. * Powell was not as much a part of the real inner circle as Cheney and Rumsfeld were (and are still). Powell is more independent and less trusted. This is more similar to an in-depth newspaper piece than a novel in terms of readability. Woodward could have described the discussions leading to policy formulation and then used hindsight to report where they were right or wrong. I would have liked more conclusions rather than just fact reporting. Another difficulty was keeping track of the passage of time. A timeline running along the top of the pages would have been helpful in this type of account. As it was I frequently had to flip around to reconfirm where I was in the calendar of events. Bottom line, "Bush at War" is a well researched book with good sources clearly evident, that is not pushing a political agenda. He needs to do another one focused on Bush in Iraq.
Rating: 
Summary: Even puff-pieces can serve history
Review: Thank goodness for this book, as it eloquently corroborates Richard Clarke's assertions that prior to 9/11, al-qaeda was not on Bush's radar, let alone his priority list. Despite fervent daily briefings from CIA director Tenet, and a strong warning from the outgoing Clinton administration, Bush himself admits in this book that he ignored the danger signs. Woodward must be a far-sighted genius, cleverly lulling an unsuspecting Bush into admitting it. Okay, actually neither Woodward or Bush had any idea at the time the quotes in this book would come back to haunt the administration, but there you have it. I understand that future printings of this book will have a title modification: "Bush (was a failure) At War." Proof that even puff-pieces like this have their purpose to history.
Rating: 
Summary: Total B.S.
Review: I found this book to be so biased and one sided, its not even funny! How can people support this ididot for re-election? Who in their right, common sense mind would want to re-elect this hardliner hawk? Bush and his cronies are guilty of illegally invading Iraq and causing the deaths of many american soliders as well as many innoncent iraq people. Why doesn't bush and his zombies go and fight on the front lines? Instead of sending young soldiers to fight his dirty war!
Rating:
Summary: Packed with Knowledge!
Review: This detailed account sometimes reads with the inside perspective of a Tom Clancy thriller. Famed Watergate reporter Bob Woodward's "fly on the wall" story relies on detailed accounts from excellent sources who were in the room when key decisions were made. This exposition lives up to his reputation, and even promotes it to another level - if there is one. He takes us inside the White House bunker, Camp David and the halls of political power. Sometimes you'll think you're reading yesterday's headlines, but the story is more interesting when Woodward tells it. His narrative line is strong and you never feel that he is pandering to an action-film audience. This volume's most important contribution is its colorful portrayal of the key decision makers and its insight into how things really worked in Washington at the nation's most critical moment. We highly recommends this book to anyone yearning for a deeper insight about the World Trade Center attacks and their continuing aftermath.
Rating:
Summary: Great Reporting
Review: Bob Woodward, as usual, has delivered us excellent reporting. This insiders account of the Bush Administration is very informative and revealing. A pretty good book.
Rating:
Summary: Don't hate the player, hate the material
Review: Woodward's writing seems the same as ever here; crisp, informative and objectively dry (read boring:-). My Woodward fave is "Veil," with its epic sweep and characters. This book is much more limited in scope and time frame. The subject matter in Bush at War is not that interesting; A new crew carries out a plan largely written during Clinton's tenure. And the players seem pretty dull... at least compared to, say, Kissinger or Casey. So Woodward is working with some stiff gray clay. Two main points stick with me from this book: 1. Bush really DID consistently make decisions - not Cheney or others. 2. Tenet's sweeping request for greatly enhanced CIA power was ALL okayed by Bush with a quick "okay." Woodward covers this decision for potentially pre-Watergate Agency power in about a page. The subtext of Bush's decision runs through the moves in Afghanistan; but I'd have enjoyed Woodward spending a few pages putting Bush's "nod" in a broader context. With some broader context, and more colorful (to me) players.... I'd add a fifth star.
Rating:
Summary: "That's alright. . .after all we're America."
Review: I took two things away from this book that can by summed up in two words: policy and personality. Bob Woodward used his amazing knack for access to secure interviews and transcripts of meetings---from the first 100 days after 9/11---which deliver a fly on the wall perspective to Bush policy and the personalities that drive that policy. "Fly on the wall" unfortunately also means that there's not much of a middleman between what's presented and the reader. By way of providing analysis and context, Woodward intentionally shies away from these authorly duties for the sake of impartiality. Although Bush at War doesn't have much of an author's voice, the principle's words speak louder, and inform deeper, than any author could. The personalities are what will stay with the reader, not so much the intricacies of the Campaign in Afghanistan. The basic dynamic of Bush's inner circle seems to be the unilaterally aggressive, military-minded elements including Cheney and Rumsfeld knocking heads with the more finessed, worldview sensibilities of Powell and Rice, with the President being in the middle but leaning toward the Cheney/Rumsfeld doctrine. One way to characterize this friction is as one of dominance vs. diplomacy. One of the more revealing quotes in the book is from President Bush. He surmised that in the course of the war on Terror our tactics would alienate us from the world community, but for him "that's alright. . .after all, we're America." If anyone harbors doubt that this administration has unilateral tendencies, this and other quotes dispel that doubt. Tempering this attitude in the administration, Powell and Rice believe that it is in the country's interest to bring the rest of the world along with our policies. They bristle at the dismissiveness of some and believe that hubris only weakens this country in the long term. While they see diplomacy as having preponderance over power politics, they do not see the latter as obsolete. Rather, it has a limited use in today's world order but is rarely the only option left us. A quote I like from Powell alludes to this perspective: "sometimes tough talk is necessary, but behind the scenes, it should not be substituted for policy." While Powell/Rice may be a counter weight to unilateral militarism, Rumsfeld/Cheney are two of its sources. Bush at War clearly shows their ideas manifested in this administration. The most revealing insight of this book shows just how, and more important, when the Iraq policy materialized. In fact, with transcripts of meetings and interviews with Rumsfeld himself, we see that on Sept 12---reflexively and without any evidence---Rumsfled urged the President to invade Iraq. This revelation could lead some to conclude that the desire to overthrow Saddam's regime in Iraq existed long before 9/11. And in fact, that conclusion is quite accurate, but you wouldn't know that for sure from this book since, as I said above, Woodward does not expound much of what is said in his book. Overall, an interested reader will find some nuggets of revelation in this book, but only after slogging through some dry text.
Rating:
Summary: Bob Woodward and the American President
Review: It was just after noon on September 13, 2002, when Bob Woodward leaned into a conference table at the Washington Post, grimacing at the cassette tape recorder I placed in front of him. Sitting around me were fellow print journalism graduate students from the University of Maryland. "So we're taped here? Is this like the Nixon system?" Woodward said. We laughed. Woodward went on. "Looking at this god-awful tape recorder, and thinking about Nixon that if you go back to Nixon or Ford, who was there briefly, or Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and now another Bush and look at all the presidents one of the things that has churned in my mind for a long time is what's the definition of the president's job?" "I want to hear your answer and then I'll give my prepared answer," Woodward said. "He's a representative of our country," one student said.
"Politically speaking, he's a fundraiser," another said. Woodward chuckled. Woodward scanned the room, taking in the various ideas. Then Woodward gave his definition. "I would say the president's job is to define the next stage of good for a majority of people in the country. And by the next stage of good it can mean winning a war, fixing the economy, saving or helping the environment and that it has to be the next stage of good for a real majority. Not one political party. Not one special interest group. But a real majority, and if a president can define the next stage of good and get it out there it's more than setting the agenda, it's setting a direction and a definition of who we are." George W. Bush's next stage of good is clear, Woodward said. "It is get rid of the evil ones, stomp out terrorism, eliminate it." When Woodward made these comments he was in the process of finishing up his book "Bush at War," a book about George W. Bush's war on terrorism. On August 20, Woodward interviewed Bush for over two hours at Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch.
In what Woodward described to Larry King on CNN as a "miracle," Simon and Schuster was able to publish "Bush at War" with incredible haste. The book was released to the public on November 18. I bought "Bush at War" the day it was released. Even though I bought it in a bookstore, I noted that it reached #1 in sales on Amazon.com that day. I marveled at Woodward's success in compiling a book filled with investigative reporting and producing it for the public in record time. It was the first time I witnessed a book being consumed by the public as breaking news. I was curious to see how Woodward's vision of the president manifested itself in Woodward's reporting? Another question I was curious about: how far can journalists go in defining the president and the president's job? In the dedication of "Bush at War," Woodward makes a reference to a favorite saying of Katherine Graham: "hands off, mind on." This is the technique that Woodward follows in "Bush at War." He never spells out his vision of Bush's job. In his reporting, he never says that it's clear Bush stands for stomping out the evil ones. He doesn't put his hands on the story. But he puts his mind to getting the story, understanding it, showing the story to the reader though factual reporting, and letting the reader decide how to define the president and his job. The result: fantastic reporting and a blueprint to the Bush Administration. A+
Rating: 
Summary: A Few Insights
Review: Woodward offers up a few insights into the White House decision-making processes in the wake of September 11. He offers a surprisingly complimentary view of President Bush, sketching him as decisive, even if not always sure what he is being decisive about. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld is depicted as screechy and infantile -- territorial to a fault (once churlishly refusing to offer Air Force One a military escort until a few minutes before takeoff). NSA Condi Rice is conciliatory --personally the closest to Bush, but this book suggests that she probably deserves some of the criticisms she receives in the press for being unable to control a cabinet full of loose cannons and huge egos. Secretary of State Colin Powell takes his lumps from Bush and the rest of the cabinet. His moderation and diplomatic skills are viewed with suspicion by Bush as well as war-hawks Cheney and Rumsfeld, and they often drop leaks to the press and work behind his back to undermine and embarrass him. Woodward got good access to people and documents, and the fact that Bush gave him lengthy and private interviews probably accounts for the book's kid-glove treatment of the president. That was likely Bush's strategy in giving the interviews: co-opt Woodward into saying nice things. The book does provide some useful chronological accounting, from the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US to the December 7 final victory in Afghanistan. There are details of conversations and White House meetings among the administration principals as the anti-Taliban and Osama strategy took shape and played out. There is also some 'epilogue' material on the rush to war in Iraq that emphasizes the precarious position of Powell in the policy-making process. A good book, interesting without being groundbreaking.
| 
