Bush at War

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.

Terrific writing, as has always been the case with Bob Woodward. Fascinating inside account of the mental struggles taking place in the executive branch of our government over terrorism after 911. Great effort by Woodward at getting inside information. (How did he do that?) The mental struggles inside the "war room" inevitably boil down to a practical application of our founding fathers' (especially Thomas Jefferson's) and now, America's, basic philosophy of "who we are and how we got here". Woodward leaves the subtle message that, whatever they do on terrorism, all members of the war room recognise that they must be on firm moral grounds, philosophically. ...

Bob Woodward's books have several predictable reactions:1) Many of the people involved or talked about in the book condemn it in generalities, but never in specifics.2) People see in the book their own prejudices. For example, Bush haters will either dislike or like the book depending on how much they perceive the book supporting or condemning Bush. Bush supporters exactly the opposite.3) Over time the book becomes a standard reference.4) As history unfolds, the observations and events described in the book might be refined but are rarely overturned in anything but details.5) Woodward comes out with a new book and the process repeats.This is a most interesting book. Bush comes across as more intelligent, involved, active, and passionate than his media persona is portrayed. This isn't to say he is without flaw, but I like Bush MORE after reading this book.Woodward also carefully details the rifts between the Cheney / Rumsfeld camp versus the Powell / Armitrage camp. This is fascinating stuff. It also gives details about Condi Rice's role in working with Bush as well as the CIA involvement in responding to 9/11. I believe that your judgment about this book should be independent of what you think of the administration's positions, policies, or the people involved. The real question to ask is, "Does this book provide us with valuable and reliable information?" I think a strong yes can be given.I think everyone interested in these issues, especially at this time of impending war, should read this book. It isn't very long, is clearly written for an easy read, and is fascinating enough to hold one's attention. Woodward works hard to remain unbiased, but few will be able to read him that way.

To my surprise Bob Woodward has brought a fresh angle to perhaps the most reported event of our times. The angle is the variety of viewpoints, personalities and management styles among the President's senior advisory group. If you think Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were calling the shots on US retaliatory policy, I suspect Woodward's work will change your mind. CIA chief George Tennent brought Bush what he wanted--a plan that could be implemented quickly and forcefully. Rumsfeld and the DOD were talking in terms of months while Bush was thinking in terms of days. Condoleeza Rice's role (and influence with the boss) was greater than I had thought. Bob Woodward seems to have sources that no one else has, plus an ability to intersperse historical perspective on the players in question. The George Bush in "Bush At War" bears no resemblence to the GWB of Saturday Night Live. The real Bush took charge, knew what he wanted to do and did it. Somewhat to my surprise I might add. This book is not a rehash; it provides a view into the White House inner circle that you won't get on the evening news or CNN.

This is a facinating look at how the President, his staff, and the CIA handled the response to the 9/11 tragedy. Hopefully, people will not politicize this, and will read the book and judge the current administration's response in an fair and unbiased way. Personally, it gives me a great deal more confidence in the president; particularly in the way he handled the different opinions among his staff. He did not go off half-cocked in any direction, and he used his people to the utmost benefit to the country. At the same time, he was decisive and action orientedin getting the job done quickly and right. Our enemies were made to pay for what they did. He did not "pound sand", as he puts it, by fruitlessly wasting our resources on meaningless use of war resources. The cost of the war in Afganistan was amazingly small for everyone except the Taliban and al Qaida. All Americans should sleep a little better after reading this.