Bush at War

Rating:
Summary: If You Favor Impeachment Over Iraq, Start Here....
Review:

As America confronts the very real probability that the Administration manipulated and distorted and fabricated intelligence in order to go to war against Iraq, and as calls rise for the impeachment of the President and the Vice President (the one naive, the other conniving), this book takes on added value--Bob Woodward has done a superb job of documenting both the "keystone cops" nature of the Administration's "strategic deliberations", and the very specific manner in which Paul Wolfowitz (too controversial to be Secretary of Defense but a power in his own right) guided the Bush team toward a war on Iraq as a "solution" to problems they could not deal with directly, to wit, the war on terrorism.

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. However, in the aftermath of the failed effort in Iraq, and the clear and compelling evidence that the American people and Congress were deceived about the Iraq threat, this book has an added luster, an added value, and become a "must read."

Rating:
Summary: Maybe a source for silly quotes
Review: A chattering book: he/she told Bob Woodward that he/she/someone else told him/her/nobody at all at this/that meeting/not really but wanted to ... All in all it is just a collection of the public images people who are called major players want to give to a journalist who so addresses them.

So if you want any insights into the US government's reactions after 9-11 and the war in Afghanistan this book is a waste of time. The only use for it I can foresee is as a source for silly quotes some future historians might use. Maybe.

Rating:
Summary: Exposed as a Sham
Review: The release of two new books that reveal the accounts of people who were actually there on and immediately after 9/11, Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke, expose this book for what it is -- a deceitful propaganda tool. The game that Woodward seems to play is a trading of favors with administration officials. These officials gave Woodward "unprecedented access" and tell him the tales that they want told and Woodward, in return features them prominently to sell a lot of books. It really is a good read, in a Tom Clancy kind of way. The only problem is that it isn't true.

Woodward says that Bush didn't focus on Iraq after 9/11, but the people who were there, Clarke and O'Neill say that he began on that horrible day to plan an attack on Iraq in spite of no evidence of any connection between Iraq and 9/11. I believe the guys who were there.

Woodward is exposed and he should be ashamed!

Rating:
Summary: An Extended Newspaper Column
Review: In _Bush at War,_ Bob Woodward has assembled an impressive account of the Bush Administration's reactions to the September 11th attacks. Based on a series of interviews with the principles, including the President, the book provides a number of fascinating details about how the administration chose to deal with the crisis. Internal politics, arguments, and the unexpected problems of the war all are brought to light.

What Woodward fails to acknowledge, however, is that these accounts are all based on interviews, not from his actually being there. Even if human nature were not part of the equation, it's unlikely such recollections could be 100% accurate. When the fact that all of the people interviewed are members of a political administration that will be seeking reelection in a year, it's hard to believe they were fully candid with Woodward. What areas might have been over- or underemphasized cannot be known with any certainty, but it's probably safe to assume any major problems that would reflect poorly on the administration were not discussed as candidly as issues where the administration did well. Therefore, this work can hardly be considered the definitive work on the post-9/11 reactions of the Bush administration.

That having been said, it is a fine read. Woodward's prose is clear and the work moves along rapidly from event to event. Descriptions are vivid, providing the illusion of the reader actually being present for the events being discussed. And while the reader is almost certainly not getting the whole story, the story provided includes enough details to cast a new light on the actions of the administration leading up to the Iraq War. Well worth a read.

Rating:
Summary: A plethora of insider tidbits makes for a compelling read
Review: Just as he has never revealed the identity of the infamous Deep Throat, so to has Bob Woodward secured the wherewithal as to how he procured the classified dialogue of National Security Council meetings which he so prominently displays throughout Bush at War. A juicy example - Deputy Secretary of State conveying to Colin Powell, "They're eating cheese on you"(military for you're getting used) when Rumsfeld and Cheney contradict Powell's earlier statements necessitating the U.N. Inspectors in Iraq.

Having read Fighting Back by Bill Sammon and enjoying it thoroughly, I likewise found Bush at War to be compelling, albeit with more focus on CIA and its chief George Tenet. At times, I thought I was reading a Tom Clancy novel when the CIA paramilitary operatives Hank and Gary(1st names only for obvious reasons) undertake their clandestine operations with suitcases full of $3M to buy off the suspect Northern Alliance and Taliban commanders. I found it chock-full of interesting, and sometimes shocking insider info from the NSC meetings that made it completely worthwhile and quite a veritable page turner. As Woodward said on Larry King, thank goodness for the 1st Amendment or this stuff would not be available to the American public. Although the administration is most likely not overly pleased with the release of much of this previously classified information, we as the American public are priveleged to have Woodward so expertly pen this telling epic in American history.

Woodward has made a concerted effort to mainain a mostly objective and unbiased account of our prodigiously talented Commander in Chief, George W. Bush. That being said, this book does skew towards the Left moreso than I would prefer. All in all, worth a read for all who desire to delve deeper into the innerworkings of the White House.

Rating:
Summary: The forgotten war...
Review: Woodward is an international media legend. The cause of his world renown was, of course, unearthing the Watergate scandal, leading to the eventual resignation of a president. Because of his long tenure at the Washington Post and reputation as a 'pure' reporter, we expect great things from this man; at least reporting the facts in a bipartisan fashion. In Bush at War, he focuses on the Bush administrations response to 9/11 in the form of the invasion of Afghanistan, as many have deemed the "forgotten war". Woodward reveals an administration, at times, hysterically grasping at a way to attain some kind of retribution for 9/11. A war cabinet at odds with each other, all seeming to have their own agendas, and in the end, after Afghanistan was supposedly won; only a few al Qaeda terrorists were captured, (16 of the top 22 leaders were still at large, and the arch enemy, bin Laden, well hidden and laughing at us from his secret hideaway) though the oppressive Taliban was disbanded, ironically and sadly, Afghanistan still remains a potential haven for al Qaeda terrorists.

One should not include this text as just another 'Bush bashing' exercise, because the president is depicted as a passionate and determined leader, albeit inexperienced, hell-bent on bringing those responsible for 9'11 to justice. Woodward skilfully puts the reader in the shoes of the president, and we feel his anger, frustration and one-eyed goal for retribution. The president's cabinet, however, are depicted as mostly floundering during the crises, fighting with one another, vying for power, in the pursuit of their own particular goals. The vice president is a crafty fellow, a smiling political assassin, so to speak, while Rumsfield is depicted as your basic playground bully. There is a scene in the book where Rumsfield pokes his finger with force into Woodward's chest during an interview, pushing the reporter off balance - this action speaks worlds. As an administrator, Rumsfield is meticulous, arrogant and definitely not a team player, (my way or no way) and, to my mind, holds the majority of responsibility for the current mess in Afghanistan and the present "quagmire" situation we now have in Iraq. Technically, the buck stops with the president, though Rumsfield has a lot to answer for...

Although not emphatically stated, Bush at War begs the question: did Afghanistan accomplish anything in terms of combating terrorism? Is the world a safer place as a result of many lives lost and literarily millions of dollars spent on bribing the Afghani Northern Alliance? Well, the answer is in the results - and they speak for themselves.

Woodward's book is by no means a revelation about this administration. One has only to look out the window, turn on the television or open a newspaper, to see where this administration is leading us. However I recommend this text as a close as possible 'true' historical record of the Afghanistan 'incursion', and how the military machine operates in war conditions.

Rating:
Summary: Lots of unanswered questions
Review: What to believe; who to trust? Those were two questions that kept recurring as I read Bush at War by Bob Woodward. Simply put, something doesn't jibe here. Why would the super-secretive, hyper-political, control-freak Bush White House grant this kind of access to Bob Woodward of all people? It doesn't make much sense. Or does it? Well, maybe it does if we think for a minute about who stood to gain and who stood to lose by having such a book published.

For starters, how about George W. Bush, shown here to be (pick several or all of the following): firm, resolute, tough, courageous, compassionate, concerned (with humanitarian issues in Afghanistan, North Korea, and Iraq, for instance), engaged, secure enough to surround himself with strong people, and even possessing that elusive trait in the Bush family -- the "vision thing," as his father called it. Wow, this guy could be the next Abraham Lincoln if he's even half this good!

But don't reserve the space on Mount Rushmore quite yet. How do we know any, or even most, of this book is true? Well, we don't. In fact, all we've really got is our trust -- or lack thereof -- in Bob Woodward. We certainly don't have any footnotes, critical voices, or even any analysis to speak of. And that's where things start falling apart. In a book like this, at least for those of us not favorably inclined towards George W. Bush, we need more than blind faith in a reporter. All that does is raise our suspicions even further. And Bob Woodward just doesn't give us what we need.

Speaking of the author, why did the White House choose Bob Woodward, of all people, to produce this "Profiles in Courage" piece? Why not just get some Republican hack from Fox News -- Roger Ailes would have been glad to supply one (along with his own confidential advice on how to run the war, etc.) -- to do the job? Was Woodward chosen because he has enough credibility built up over the years so that the story might actually be semi-believable? Woodward's not telling.

Anyway, having chosen Bob Woodward, for whatever reason, to tell the story of Bush at War" (also known as "how George W. Bush saved freedom, truth, and the American way"), we really have no idea whether or not the Chosen One (Woodward) was: 1) independent and objective in his reporting here; 2) manipulated by Ari Fleischer and friends; 3) simply a conduit for the story the Bush White House wanted him (and the public) to hear; or 4) some combination of "all of the above?" Almost certainly #4 is the correct and final answer, but who knows for sure?

Another major problem with Bush at War is that "you don't know what you don't know," and all we've got to go on here is what the White House -- via its messenger-boy Bob Woodward -- provides us. And sorry Bob, but that's just not sufficient. I mean, seriously, why should we believe anything coming out of this White House: the same hyper-political, control-freak, super-secretive bunch that won't release records of who the Cheney energy task force met with, that has set up a secret group in the Pentagon (headed by convicted felon John Poindexter, no less) to spy on us, that has launched a frontal assault on the Freedom of Information Act, and that has locked up thousands of people without trial or due process? And now we are supposed to trust the Bush White House, to believe, for example, that slimy, smarmy Karl Rove (who comments admiringly at one point how an enthusiastic Yankees stadium reception for Bush was just like "being at a Nazi rally"), really had absolutely nothing to do with the Bush administration's decisions after 9/11? Does anyone out over the age of 10 there really buy this? Well, Bob Woodward -- the experienced, cynical, hardened, veteran Washington reporter -- apparently does. Again, what's going on here?

Maybe the most interesting thing here is that, in spite of all its propaganda efforts with Bob Woodward, the Bush Administration "A Team" (Powell, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, etc.) really doesn't end up looking that great in "Bush at War." Don Rumsfeld in particular comes off as aloof, obsessive, irritable, and a weird control freak. Dick Cheney comes off somewhat better, although inscrutable, but still bearing a creepy resemblance to Dr. Strangelove. Colin Powell is depicted as on the margins, constantly doubting whether things will work, but basically always holding to his role as the loyal soldier. As a whole, the "A Team" -- at least as depicted here -- actually is not the smooth-functioning, well-oiled machine that Rove et al. would like us to believe it is. In fact, for most of the book these wise men and women seem to be almost completely "making it up as they went" along, hoping for a lucky break.

You've got to hand it to George W. Bush. He may not be very smart. He may not be very compassionate. He may not have "the vision thing." But he's certainly very lucky. And whether we like it or not, we could be stuck with Mr. Lucky for another four years.

Rating:
Summary: What's the...
Review: What's the ugliest part of your body?
Some say your nose,
Some say your toes,
But I think it's your mind... your MIND...

George, you're beast!

Rating:
Summary: Interesting
Review:

Rating:
Summary: A Family Portrait
Review: "Bush at War" invites comparison with "Against All Enemies". These books could not lead the reader into more starkly contrasting conclusions about the capacity of the current administration.

Naturally, some people will explain the contrast in terms of motivation. Some people will dismiss Clarke's book as the venal revenge of a disappointed civil servant. To others, Woodward has portrayed his subjects sympathetically to ensure access for future books.

I don't think either book requires an ad homonym explanation. The difference is really very simple. Clarke's book is the result of somebody living the day-to-day activity of the White House and reporting what he has seen first-hand. It is like a candid photograph. In contrast, Woodward's book is like a posed family portrait. Administration officials recounted their version of what happened, deeply conscious that what they said would end up in print. To expand on the family portrait simile, "Bush at War" is like a portrait posed not by the photographer, but by the subjects, some of whom undoubtedly scrunch down a bit to make the Big Guy look bigger.

Still, once you get past the fact that the sources for "Bush at War" are self-conscious and self-serving, the book is eminently fascinating. Bush comes across as supremely decisive. Once he has chosen a course of action, he does not revisit his decision. That is good or bad, depending upon the rightness of the original decision. It is a quality that wins him popular admiration and support. It is a quality that members of his administration act in consciousness of. In one episode, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice approached Bush with some misgivings about the direction of the war in Afghanistan. The book protrays her as unwilling to broach her misgivings, except in the most indirect way, and, indeed, the meeting resulted in the President's decision to stay the course, reflecing a signature quality of the President.

"Bush at War" provides insider details. For example, the President dispatched Colin Powell to the Middle East for a hopeless mission to pour oil on particularly troubled waters between Israel and the Palestinians. While he was out on that precarious limb, high unnamed administration rival were more than happy to saw it behind him. Powell comes across as most under-appreciated.

Another example is a conference between chief of staff Andrew Card and the President. Card was concerned that Bush was immersing himself too much in the details of the Afghanistan war. He felt that Bush needed to be President, and he needed to let the generals be the generals. Card invoked the specter of Lyndon Johnson, who famously micro-managed the Vietnam war, to warn Bush off over-involvement in military decision-making. Bush reportedly took the advice to heart.

All in all, this is a valuable book, and when the reader is alert to its limitation, it gives valuable insights into the inside workings of the Bush White House.