Rating: 
Summary: This would be a great book without the author's bais.
Review: I eagerly awaited Bob Woodward's "Bush at War" because I hoped to get a factual account of what really happened in Afghanistan. I had been disappointed by the news coverage. The coverage was, I thought, unnecessarily critical, hostile sometimes, almost as though certain members of the media hoped our people would fail. Perhaps that's the way the news media is: search for controversy, play it up to make it more appealing and then slant their coverage so that their opinions outweigh the facts. They also play up conflict between persons, inflating the conflict almost like professional gossips, until we get an image of our leaders seemingly at each others throats.I had hoped Woodward's book would be different. However, I was disappointed to see, mixed in with the facts, the same sort of snide remarks and gossip that I had seen on the networks. For example, on page 24, Woodward states that Mr. Cambonn "was the means by which, at least initially, Rumsfeld had extended his grasp around the throats of the military brass." Was it necessary to state an opinion that way? I presume that the basic fact is that Cambonn helped Rumsfeld consolidate his legitimate authority. On page 23, Woodward quotes someone as saying that Rumsfeld "is an egomaniac cleverly disguised." This is a petty gripe to put into a book that will be read by millions. There is no need to make snide remarks like this. Woodward, on page 21, referring to Bush's father wrote: "It was inconceivable, at the time, that the head of spying and dirty tricks abroad could ever become president." What deep message is embedded in this statement? On page 29, Woodward refers to the CIA ". . . as the most secretive, subterranean lattice work of undercover case workers, paid agents, and secret stealers in the world." I think there is a better way to characterize these men who have dedicated their lives to help defend our country. Stealing secrets is a petty way of putting it. Al Qaeda's attack on the twin towers was a secret before it was carried out. Did this secret belong only to al Qaeda? Have we no justification trying to "steal" it? The news media has never stopped criticizing Bush and his administrating for not "stealing" this secret before the towers were destroyed. Why describe the CIA's work in such a biased way? No nation would be secure if it did not try to discover beforehand the intentions of potentially hostile nations. That's the way the world is. All nations spy to protect themselves. On page 58, Woodward writes "Bush was tired of rhetoric. The president wanted to kill somebody." On page 277, when describing the Yankee fans cheering as Bush throws the opening pitch, Woodward quotes someone's comment: "It's like being at a Nazi rally." When I read these two statements, I wondered what is Woodward's underlying point? When someone in congress leaked sensitive military plans, Bush decided to allow only the Big Eight in congress have access to sensitive information, Woodward seemed critical of Bush. The paper Woodward helps to manage, "The Washington Post," printed a front page article featuring the leaked information the day after it was revealed. Is this "news" to publish classified information so that even our enemies can read it? It might seem news to some, but it's my neck at stake when classified information is made public. I don't fault Bush at all in trying to limit access to classified information. I think it's shameful that members of congress would deliberately leak it. Woodward plays up conflict between Powell and Rumsfeld. I'm sure it was difficult to reach an agreement encompassing different points of view, but I think it is a disservice to both men to play up their different views when, in fact, both men worked together to accomplish an amazing feat of adroit statesmanship and stunning military success. Just think of it! These men helped to achieve our country's goals denying al Qaeda a safe haven in just ten weeks. "Bush at War" could have been a great book if Woodward had focused more on the patriotic sense of duty these men have and less on gossip trying to emphasize rivalry between them. We owe them and President Bush a vote of thanks, not only Americans but people of other nations as well. The world is significantly safer now because of what these men did. Had Woodward realized this and made it the overall theme of his book, "Bush at War" could have been a great book of lasting interest.
Rating: 
Summary: No longer a journalist
Review: This book is not a first draft of history. I doubt future historians will find anything of interest in it. It reads like a novel with stereotypical characters. Woodward brags about all the access he got from top goverment officials and he paints heroic portraits of people who gave him access, including Bush. But it doesn't look like he asked any meaningful questions to people who gave him access. Why war with Iraq? Why now? Woodward doesn't say. It looks like there was an understanding. Woodward would get access and in exchange for access he wouldn't ask any inconvenient questions. Bob Woodward the journalist has been utterly corrupted by power. He is now just another Washington insider.
Rating:
Summary: Decent, "sort of" inside story
Review: This was a decent book that I've enjoyed reading; it purpotes to give the inside story behind the White House's response on 9/11. And I'm for the most part reasonably sure that it roughly corresponds to what happened inside the white house. However, there is sort of unreal aspect that one senses when reading it; for it starts to almost read like a Tom Clancy novel, or any other spy novel. Its also important to take this work for what it is; its the "inside" story of a war that is still underway. Some might jump up and immediatly scream "Propaganda! You are being brainwashed and you should be reading Chomsky instead!" after reading a few pages of this, but in my opinion that is not a fair assessment. I could easily see a hypothetical book about World War II published in 1944, or a another hypothetical book about the Cuban Missile Crisis published in 1963 be written in the same style. It is unrealistic to expect anything different. So my advise would be, to read this book, take it for face value and enjoy it for what is, and go from there.
Rating: 
Summary: An unbiased report on what really happened.
Review: Once again Bob Woodward has written an unbiased book which tells you what really happened. And you learn some fascinating details such as "The realities at the beginning of the 21st century were two: the possibility of another massive, surprise terrorist attack similar to September 11, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction - biological, chemical or nuclear. Should the two converge in the hands of terrorists or a rogue state, the United States could be attacked and tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of people could be killed. In addition, the president and his team had found that protecting and sealing the U.S. homeland was basically impossible. Even with heightened security and the national terrorist alerts, the country was only marginally safer." This one quote explains why we went to war with Afghanistan, Iraq, and soon other countries as well. As I write this, the administration is doing the initial steps in preparing for war with North Korea. (Repositioning our troops, building up alliances, etc.) I greatly prefer this unbiased book over biased books such as "The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush" by David Frum which is an obviously pro-Bush book.
Rating: 
Summary: The folks & foibles behind our Fratboy-in-Chief
Review: Love him or hate him, George Bush is running a unique White House. His team stays unnervingly tightly on message, fights their battles mostly in private (one gets the sneaking suspicion that public Powell- Rumsfeld disagreements are really Bush trial balloons), is far less susceptible to leaks, and effectively changes decision in the face of adversity. If you don't like Bush, this book will appear to be glossing over his lack of intellectual curiosity, the macho bravado of his decision-making process, and the extent to which he is a creature of the political interests that backed him in his run for office. I short, if you're a liberal and not of the "inside baseball" political junkie type, your money is best spent elsewhere as this book will just disgust you. If you do like Bush, you will see here our "Top Gun" president (though I thought the aircraft carrier photo op was more of a "Luke Skywalker at the end of the first Star Wars" production) making decisive decisions, backing his people fully, and creating day-by-day the conditions necessary for victory. If you're a political professional, student of politics, or lover of a good group dynamics exegesis, you will greatly enjoy this work for its exploration of all the inside dirt, machinations, and organizational behavior quirks of the world's most powerful office politics. Obviously there are limits to what even the most diligent of journalists can re-create. And this particular perception of events is surely wrong in its particulars in many places. But as a whole, it hangs together very well, and it seems to comport with the dozens of other stories about the functionings, foibles, and folks at the White House. There is not much in this book for the anti-Bush crowd to like. Woodward, who can hardly be called a Republican stooge, does not portray a goose-stepping Bush taking orders from a shadowy secret cabal of oil industry plutocrats while blowing his nose alternately into the Bill of Rights, the French flag, and the UN Charter. Woodward gets inside and gets the story. He shows Condoleeza Rice again and again playing intramural referee. He not only gets the basic Rumsfeld - Powell tensions, but also shows how each man, by virtue of his background, predilections, and character, *must* be who they are. No, this is not grand biography on the sacle of a Chernow or a Caro, and the writing is easy, brisk, and clear. Given the subject matter, time to produce, salience, and access, though, Woodward has scored a real hit. Woodward quite reasonably focuses on six principals: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Tenet & Rice. This is a simplification and we are certainly missing the slightly broader backstory in which the two dozen closest aides to those six jockey, wiggle, horsetrade and backstab as they provide, deny and spin information to their superiors. But it is a necessary and reasonable simplification that shows us the broader truths. And Woodward provides enough glimpses of these backstage battles to feel real. Other excellently handled vignettes include the lonely CIA operative in Afghanistan and the essential diplomacy pursued with Pakistan in the weeks after 9/11. Again, this book is for the political junkie or the partisan Republican only, our friends on the other side of the aisle would be best off saving their money for something less vexing.
Anybody who has experience with small group dynamics will be fascinated by this account at that level alone. I'm certain that Woodward's skill could make a Nebraska state party convention seem just as riveting. The stakes involved amplify the importance, interest and our enjoyment, of the story.
Rating:
Summary: Inside story at the White House?
Review: Where are they heading for? What's their goal? If you are looking for a textbook that tells you the decision-making system in the Bush Administration, you should read 'Bush at War.'
Written by Bob Woodward, a well-known journalist and also the writer of 'the Commanders,'etc., it clearly describes how foreign policy was made in the White House after the 9/11th attacks, citing, for example,struggles between Donald Rumsfeld and other hawkish guys and dovish Powell over foeign policy and war plans. It's as if he had eavesdropped on the White House. After reading this, you might be able to predict where the Administration will move ahead and what ramifications they will bring about for your own country and also for the world in the future.
Rating:
Summary: Good but no Cigar
Review: Yet another "inside the Beltway" confessional starring the DC powers and powers that wannabe. In here they go about their appointed or elected tasks all the while spilling their guts to Woodward. History will judge George Bush on one thing: His decision to involve the U.S in an ongoing world-wide war against not only terrorists but terrorist states supporting them either directly or indirectly. This idea seemingly pops into view in the midst of the chaos surrounding 911 and it sets the stage for world events for the next decade. Frankly, I prefer Bush's managerial style over the incoherent, jumbled style of his predecesor that has been described in detail by former administration insiders. The managerial style is particularly effective in crisis mode which, after reading the book, it seems Washington is in 24/7. Depending on your point of view, it is either an affirmation or confirmation of previously-held personal opinions. Bush is seen as resolute, steady, able but not brilliant, open to suggestions. He can also be seen as unbending, relying too much on deputies and merely selecting from an array of options. Others appear as expected. Cheney, unconcerned with celebrity, always looking for lurking dangers. Rice, the Great Compromiser, perhaps the only one who knows the "real" George Bush. Tenet is the administrator, a voice crying in the wildernerness. Rumsfeld and Powell duke it out again and again, both behind the scenes and in public. Yet when push came to shove on Iraq, Powell jumped on board, thoroughy disgusted with the broken French promises as Bash or Cheney. The trouble I had with the book was its tone as a documentary rather than a story. We read about events, facts, alleged conversations, overheard telephone calls, political mutterings but see little analysis or conclusions. One gets the idea that Powell is the hidden Savior of the administration and indeed, his stature and prominence seem to grow as one progresses into the story. Still, one must give kudos to the author for getting the story.
Rating:
Summary: Good portrayal
Review: It's hard to believe that the American people are getting duped into looking at Bush as a "leader" in times of war. How can anyone, in their right mind, call the travesty in Iraq a war? It was simply a "we're gonna mow you down 'cause we're bigger than you" type of scenario. How can there be a war with a one-sided attack? This book proves to me that Bush is, indeed, manipulated and handled by the likes of Carl Rove (read Bush's Brain) and others who played a major role in putting him as the Resident of the White House. I voted for the father because of his long and distinguished career serving our country. The son doesn't even come close. I think that Woodward did an excellent job in bringing out, ever so subtly, that it's a Hollywood portrayal, folks - one that can be performed much better by "President Bartlett!" Read between the lines - Bob Woodward did an excellent research job and an equally excellent writing job...so don't miss the obvious points.
Rating:
Summary: Proof Pres. Bush is no war-monger
Review: Presumably, Bob Woodward has no particular leanings toward a Republican president, even though Richard Nixon propelled his career. I find this rendering to be conclusive evidence of President Bush's absolute dedication to his oath of office to protect this country and it's people. Woodward puts into context the concerns of the President , in the days following 9-11, that his cabinet not jump to conclusions but had to act.
If you pay attention to the course of the dialogue you come away with the conclusion that the President was very wary of making Iraq's connection to the terrorist attack without exploring every source of information. While the war with Iraq is not the subject, this book should put to rest the idea that 9-11 gave a vengeful presidential family the perfect opportunity to finish what they had started a decade earlier!
Rating:
Summary: Protecting his access
Review: Bush at War offers an often fascinating glimpse into what was happening in the White House ahead of the war in Afghanistan that followed in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. But it necessarily suffers from the problems that any writer addressing current events and people still in power suffers from: the knowledge that what is written will have an impact on the way the writer is treated and the access he is given in the future. That is especially true of Bob Woodward. Dating back nearly 30 years to when he and partner Carl Bernstein famously made names for themselves by uncovering much of the Watergate scandal, Mr. Woodward's strength has always been his ability to track down information rather than a talent for putting events into perspective. With Bush at War, I could almost feel certain editorial decisions being made to protect that access to information above all else. In fact, some of that access seems to have been limited despite the care he took. In painting a picture of the president's decision-making, the book is notably light on first-hand information from Vice President Dick Cheney or Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, for example, and much heavier on the views of Secretary of State Colin Powell. That imbalance is not ideal, but it does present one of its unlikely strong points: while the views of the hawkish Cheney/Rumsfeld faction of the White House's advisory team are well known (because they were turned into action on the battlefield and on the diplomatic front) Mr. Woodward's efforts here give us an interesting perspective on what might have been had the more multilateralist and tactful Secretary Powell had his way.
| 
