Rating: 
Summary: Read Jabanoski's SCARECROW Instead
Review: Perfect, precise, analytical reporting by Mr. Woodward as always. Unfortunately, these aren't times for "perfect, precise, analytical reporting." 50,000 or more Iraqi civilians are dead, 1,300 of our soldiers are dead, and Osama bin Laden is not only very much alive and well, but has been proved correct about America's intentions to destroy the Islamic people in the minds of the great majority of Arab people. To hell with "perfect and precise" and polite interviews. Read Bill Jabanoski's novel reported out of Iraq called SCARECROW. It has all the passion, horror, and direct damnation at the lies and intent on genocide of the Bush administration that you won't find in this book. In case you're wondering, I am Jewish, and have lived half my life in Israel, so I suppose most people think I'm supposed to hate Muslims. No! I refuse to fall into that trap! This insanity of slaughter of innocent people on all sides has to stop somewhere. Jabanoski gives you the real hell caused by this "President" and a possible solution. All Woodward does here is sit back in his corner office at The Washington Post and play the political game with a winking bend to the left.
Rating:
Summary: "Known unknowns" & "Unknown unknowns" on the way to Baghdad
Review: "The worst thing that could happen would be to allow a nation like Iraq, run by Saddam Hussein, to develope weapons of mass destruction AND THEN team up with terrorist organizations so they can blackmail the world" (emphasis added). Such are President Bush's words & his evolving reasoning post September 11th; which led him to ask this of Donald Rumsfeld on 11-21-2001: "What kind of a war plan do we have for Iraq?" This book by Mr Woodward is the story of what happened next. Rumsfeld had improvised the plans for Afghanistan, but now he was getting the opportunity to get ahead of the curve. He directed General Tommy Franks to review what was on the shelf vis-a-vis Iraq. 5 weeks later Franks was briefing Bush on his preliminary views. This he was asked to do in Crawford so that Bush could gauge the character of the man who Bush would have to rely upon; that is, if he were to chose to pursue this matter militarily. From there Franks kept tweaking and revamping the plan to shorten the time required to build up forces; mostly by determining what needed to be done, when, and whose help would be needed to facilitate such requirements. Franks contributed the "notion of spikes"---how to postition materials and forces into place in a manner as much under the radar, so to speak, as possible. By March of 2002 Franks was himself becoming convinced that his planning didn't just fall within the realm of possibilities by this point anymore, but was rather likely to be eventually acted upon. That's the primal point that is apparent in this book by Mr. Woodward---that the "momentum of war" was pushing this along after 9/11. So that by the time President Bush challenged the UN (September 12, 2002) to address Iraq or become irrelevent, the die was already set. The intervention of Prime Ministers Blair, Howard (Australia), and Aznar (Spain), as well as Secretary Powell, were seemingly responsible for giving the United Nations this one last chance to particiate in enforcing the dozen-plus UN resolutions that Saddam was breeching. The Bush administration thus found itself in a convenient position. Saddam, whose position was becoming progressivelhy less precarious up until September 11th, immediately was thrown back on the ropes, so to speak, as a result of that day's developments. Say---if your predilection is such---that 9/11 gave Bush the excuse to go after Saddam, but it could just as easily be said that Septmber 11th did shock Bush into the belief that al-Qaeda was not simply going to be defeated by denying them sanctuary in Afghanistan; that the Arafat---who spat on the peace plan presented him by Ehud Barak & Clinton---wasn't going to shoulder his pistol as long as he was championed by Saddam; and that one couldn't gamble that in the future al-Qaeda and Saddam wouldn't formalize the alliance that existed philosophically between them concerning their hatred of Western Civilization and/or America. So, was the Iraq was a pre-emptive one? Absolutely. But that doesn't negate the fact that Iraq was in breech of countless UN Security Council Chapter 7 Resolutions (which are subject to enforcement---unlike General Assembly resolutions against Israel, for instance, which have no enforcement mechanism; and are, in actuality, thus purely political). So we have two books in one, in effect, thanks to Mr. Woodward: an exposition of the planning toward war with Iraq, as well as the overlay of the endgame of Saddam's decade long cat & mouse game vis-a-vis the United Nations. It certainly makes for fascinating reading. Cheers!
Rating: 
Summary: Correcting the myths
Review: A previous review states the oft-repeated lie that Joe Wilson "disproved" that Saddam tried to buy uranium: "For example, when former ambassador and Africa expert Joseph C. Wilson is sent to investigate the rumor that Saddam had tried to buy weapons-grade nuclear fuel from an African nation, he comes back from the war-torn continent with the unambiguous conclusion that the rumor was unfounded." Now, in fact, we know that Joe Wilson was partisan liar, and Bush was telling the truth all along: Multiple intelligence agencies and sources have been reviewed, the evidence confirmed (eg the Butler report) and determined that it was well-founded: Saddam was indeed tryng to buy uranium from Niger. Lesson? Dont buy Joe Wilson's book. And dont believe the phony mantra of him and others on the left, bashing Bush as a liar. More and more facts show that in fact Bush acted in good faith. Indeed "Plan of Attack" clearly backs up that thesis. This was about assessing and defeating a threat to United States. Nothing about oil, kowtowing to saudis, or some neocon rule the world plot (sorry mikey moore you're full of it). Just Bush and his team trying to protect national security in a post 9/11 world, with many uncertainties and assumptions that necessarily entails. So the real lying partisan liars are in the anybody but Bush brigade yelling 'Bush lied'. They are wrong. Woodward's work? It's a good book. Dunno if its a "slam dunk" though. :-) Take some of the 'private conversations' with grain of salt.
Rating: 
Summary: Tremendous cast, plot and play. Unknown ending
Review: Although the plot of Woodward's story is so well known, I couldn't help being petrified of the suspense by reading it. Plan of Attack has a lot in common with the best of Forsyth or le Carre. Written as a novel, with dialogue and a strict chronological order of play, you are really getting into the hearts and minds of Bush, Powell and Rumsfeld. Additional spice is provided by in-the-field reports from CIA agents operating in northern Iraq. The book is also very easy to read, even for a guy who doesn't have English as his mother tongue. The main question, however is Why did the administration go to war against Iraq? That question is only partially answered by Woodward. Powell claims Cheney's fever about Saddam plays a very large part, and in Plan of Attack the VP is something like the Prince of Darkness. And the Prince didn't talk to Woodward, as the other main characters did. "Things didn't really get decided until the president had met with Cheney alone," as Powell noted (p. 392). The book doesn't give a clear picture of Condi Rice's position either. She seems a bit weak, but her own attitudes are very rarely exposed. Anyway: read the book. Especially the first part of the book, detailing how Rumsfeld turned the Pentagon upside down, questioning all the assumptions in all the war plans is very interesting. The ambitions of the American army with state-of-the-art technology against an enemy without it, are pretty high. General Hayden wanted "the Iraqi military so thoroughly covered that the man in the Humvee would have more real-time situational awareness about where the Iraqis were than the Iraqis would have about themselves" (p. 217). The second part, about developing a diplomatic strategy, ("seeking support, not permission,") is also a great read.
Rating:
Summary: Still poignant after the election
Review: Bob Woodward's detailed account of the planned invasion of Iraq provides insight into the leaders of the current administration. The personal characteristics and interactions shown enable the reader to better understand how decisions and policies are made. Importantly, Woodward's own observations and opinions are minimilized.
For example, peronalities and interactions such as those with Secretary Powell are on display. While the rocky relationship between Colin Powell and President Bush that led to Powell's resignation has been documented, it is interesting to see how Rice, his successor, was often present in meetings between the two. In fact her influence upon the President can be seen as substantial. Other such intricacies also arise throughout the narrative.
As for the ease of the read, it is fairly straightforward and as opposed to some of his other works, it does not inundate the reader with an endless list of names. It is however, filled with plenty of facts that may seem daunting. There are, however, plenty of choice phrases said by the major players that at least stop it from seeming like a textbook.
If you're interested in reading about this administration, this book provides an opportunity to do so. Although it is an information laden book that may appeal to you a little less now that the election is over, it is a compartively easy read with still pertinent info.
Rating:
Summary: A Magnificent Piece of Journalism
Review: From the secure meetings among Bush's cabinet members, to the stealthy operations of the CIA's network of "ROCKSTARS," Plan of Attack presents the whole story of the build-up to the Iraq war in stunning detail. Wonderfully balanced, Woodward was careful to present the actions, rationale, reservations, and compromises of those involved behind the scenes without spinning or coloring the events with his own political leanings. He leaves his readers with a sense of understanding of the history behind the Iraq conflict, as well as the freedom to draw their own conclusions about its merit. This is an informative and entertaining book that I'd recommend to anyone regardless of their personal political leanings.
Rating:
Summary: Woodward's Best Yet
Review: I've been a fan of Bob Woodward ever since I read "All the President' Men". This book, "Plan of Attack", far exceeded my expectations. Bob Woodward shows in detail the inner-workings of our government, especially the NSC. This book details the struggle between Bush administration officials on key issues, some that became policy. "Plan of Attack" digs deep into the division between Sec. Powell and Sec. Rumsfeld on the basics of the Iraq war planning. Everyone remembers seeing updates on news channels on the war planning. This book details aspects of the planning that the American public never even drempt of. Probably to the advantage of the American people. Bob Woodward takes the term "investigative reporting" to a new level. This book, really opened my eyes. Bob Woodward truely did a magnificent job with this one.
Rating:
Summary: woodward isn't woodward anymore
Review: No one can get the skinny like woodward can get the skinny. There are few reporters who get to spend hours interviewing the president, but Woodward did for this book.
Woodward gets this kind of access because he is the most important investigative reporter in America. If you don't tell him, someone else will. But like any good reporter, Woodward is concerned about keeping his sources, and while this book is informative about what was going on in the White House around the time of the start of the war in Iraq, it fails to take the White House to task for the mistakes made in those early days of the war. Its still an important book, becuase of the access Woodward recieved, but in the future no one will remember Plan of Attack like they remember All the Presidents Men.
Rating: 
Summary: What does Woodward think of Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed?
Review: The lionization of Robert Woodward since Watergate, while earned, has become woefully exaggerated in the 21st century. The new Bob Woodwards, practicing real life-altering investigative journalism, are now being ignored by him; just as he was in the early 70s by the reporters in Nixon's back pocket. Woodward's book PLAN OF ATTACK in that context, is, like all of his books, well-written. But, like ten percent real penicillin in a world where only full strength will cure a disease, the facts he leaves out--purposely--are frightening. "This [neoconservative] focus on reintegrating Iraq into the regional framework of order under US hegemony was no doubt heightened by the fact that Iraq challenged the US monopoly over the oil trade, maintained through the fact that oil transactions occur in US dollars. Since 1971...the dollar has...become the de facto world reserve currency... Overall, since the world economy is fundamentally oil-dependent, this...lends the US a dominant trading advantage...In November 2000, Iraq began trading its oil in euros, and profited handsomely in the process. Iran, Venezuela and Russia--all key oil producers--have also considered and/or moved towards switching to the euro..." Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed
BEHIND THE WAR ON TERROR
From Part Two, Chapter Seven: "False Pretexts" "The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in Iraq--or more importantly, the reason why the corporate-military-industrial network conglomerate wants a puppet government in Iraq--is so that it will revert back to a dollar standard and
stay that way..." Wiliam Clark
"The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War
with Iraq: a Macroeconomic and
Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth"
Independent Media Center, January, 2003
Quoted by
Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed
BEHIND THE WAR ON TERROR
In Part Two, Chapter Seven: "False Pretexts" Woodward gives an insider's look at the seemingly intimate struggles of the Bush, Jr. Administration over Iraq. But as he is definitively a political insider now, with clout to protect, Ahmed, an established outsider, forces us to question the very relevancy and legitimacy of Woodward's entire perspective in a way with which he could never be comfortable. Woodward essentially gives us investigative journalism-8lite*. Ahmed gives us straight, no chaser, investigative scholarship, like the old Woodward, the likes of which can only demand a paradigm shift in one's perception of modern government, regardless of how you choose to reinterpret his fact-finding when you put the book down. If you've ever wondered what the Catholic bishops must have felt when reading the work of Galileo for the first time, or the Protestant community of the 19th century reading the work of Darwin, or what the Newtonian physics scientific community felt seeing Einstein prove his point about relativity, unlike Woodward (now the Newton to Ahmed's Einstein), the scholarship of Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed will let you know in perhaps the most politically frightening way possible. In the end, whether or not you choose to follow Ahmed to the end of his theories, you will be left with a totally new understanding of the raison d'etre of both modern history and modern war. If you didn't know that FDR knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor because he set America up to be bombed in 1941, in order to get the isolationist-minded American populace to join World War Two--and how he did it--you will learn with Ahmed. If you didn't know that there were plans in the military (kept classified until the Freedom of Information Act of 1975) of terrorizing and even killing American citizens in Miami and throughout Florida in such a way that it would look like Castro's military did it, to justify an American invasion of Cuba in 1962, you will learn with Ahmed. If you didn't know that the total absence of any military response to the hijacking of American planes before they hit the World Trade Center on September 11th is something that has NEVER happened before in FAA or military history, you will learn with Ahmed. If you had no idea of the unusual and otherwise inexplicably heavy trade on the stock market that took place days before September 11th regarding Airline and oil stocks, you will learn with Ahmed. And if you can find a way to digest all of that, plus 1) hundreds of other provable historical/foreign policy facts of the European/American 20th Century from a plethora of credible sources--in and out of America--he brings to light, revealing a unified and unchanged philosophy of government and power,
2) the political/economic agendas behind the secret psychological architecture of modern day war explained with amazing clarity,
3) the revealing of our current Administration's relationship with International Oil cartels for the past three generations, and
4) the seemingly infinite number of both otherwise inexplicable anamolies AND
examples of unprecedented ineptitude regarding both the intelligence community
and the military's failure to prevent 9/11 from happening, WITHOUT coming to the same conclusions Ahmed does...than God bless you. I cannot. Iraq is just a little bit bigger than Saddam Hussein. And the refusal of the American media to reveal the nature of the global, humanitarian/genocidal scandals of this administration makes it a corrupt institution beyond salvaging. Woodward's PLAN OF ATTACK is essentially an apologia to the Bush II administration, the true investigative journalism he once iconically symbolized, and the modern "courtier" journalism (as Cornel West so politely called the new American whorehouse) that is now called the news, simultaneously. As such, the divided loyalties inherent in the book's construction definitively obscure and cheapen the content's intrinsic relevance. WAR ON FREEDOM (which explains why exactly 9/11 happened, and how) and BEHIND THE WAR ON TERROR (which explains exactly why we really invaded Iraq years later) by Ahmed are the real books every American needs to read, in order to save our Nation's soul--the soul Woodward seems to have sold with PLAN OF ATTACK for the benefit of controlling his now tenuous reputation in journalistic history. Read all three books, and come to your own conclusions.
Rating:
Summary: Timely reminder
Review: This book develops a sound hypothesis and presents balanced, compelling information to support it. It reminds us how MUCH good journalism can uncover and, at the same time, how LITTLE journalists and the general citizenry know about the true workings of the intelligence community. Woodward's narrative is as telling for the facts presented as it is for the facts omitted. Such omissions are not necessarily a reflection of author bias (indeed, this work is one of those rare books that seems to be truly committed to objectivity); no, these omissions are inherent with any discussion of intelligence and military planning. There is some material that is simply not available now; some that will never be. Woodward's work is remarkable for how much he actually uncovered. Readers may agree or disagree with his findings, while respecting his objective, vigorous research. Current history at its most provocative.
|
