24 of 25 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Bush at War in Afghanistan, April 1, 2004
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
15 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Political Red Meat for Cons and Libs (3 & 1/2 stars), October 13, 2004
Bob Woodward, who was a major player in breaking the Nixon Watergate scandal and also wrote the book-made-into-movie, "All the Presidents Men," writes his account of President George W. Bush's presidency during the first 100 days after the attacks on the two World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001. Conscientiously fair, Woodward has put together a quite comprehensive behind-the-scenes documentary-style book that reveals a full-disclosure look at the Bush war cabinet, their meetings and interactions with one another, interviews with the President and much more.
Of interest to those who seek authenticity, this book will make you feel like a fly on the wall. According to Woodward, Bush at War includes: "contemporaneous notes taken during more than 50 National Security Council and other meeting where the most important decisions were discussed and made." Additionally, Woodward states that he "interviewed more than 100 people involved in the decision making and execution of the war [in Afghanistan], including President Bush" (4 hours of interviews), "key war cabinet members, the White House staff, and officials serving at various levels of the Defense and State Departments and the CIA." Needless to say, a great deal of investigative effort was put into this book, which can be said of all Mr. Woodward's books.
I read Bush at War about a year-and-a-half ago, and after much time and reflection, I am amazed at the amount of access to the Administration that Woodward was given. I found this to be rather astonishing, as it was almost certainly an unprecedented move by a world leader in terms of permitting the scope and freedom that Woodward enjoyed. At the time this book was originally published, Bush at War contained a good deal of secret information from the war effort in Afghanistan. No doubt the reason for such trust in Woodward comes from his reputation for fair and impartial reporting, his unmatched investigative skills, and his astute journalistic credentials.
But enough about Woodward.
From the beginning, we are familiarized with the key players involved in post-9/11 war planning subsequent to the terrorist attacks. Woodward begins the story of that sunny Tuesday on 9/11 by going through the events of that morning through then CIA director George Tenet's perspective, leading to the urgently ominous, "Mr. Director, there's a serious problem." From there, the previously untold story of how Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Tenet dealt with the worst attack on America unfolds before your very eyes.
As I've alluded in my opening statements, this book reads like a documentary to me. I can visualize much of the book as if I were reading a transcript from a hypothetical movie that could've been named "100 Days After." But one of the most interesting and even intriguing things about this book is not just the details of the book itself, but the perspective with which people have read it and reviewed it. There is such a contrast in what people have gotten from it, and the opinions that have been formed after reading it. It is a perfect example for me that the term "what you find depends mostly on what you look for" has a resounding ring of truth; especially when the subject matter involves political figures. But it's really a testament to Bob Woodward in this instance, because it shows to me just how impartial the book really is. Most, if not all the information that those who've read the book were looking for is provided; and most importantly, we are judiciously left to make our own informed decisions and judgments on how we feel about what took place in the Bush White House subsequent to the 9/11 attacks.
For instance, there are conversations about Iraq that provide some insight into the President's feelings on the subject. These quotes are surprisingly candid and really provide more answers on his reasoning for deciding to liberate (or "liberate" for those who prefer the insinuation) Iraq. You will read just what Bush's vision for the world is, in his own words. What's priceless about it is that they're direct quotes that haven't been filtered by spinsters or the PC police. It's raw George W. Bush like you've never witnessed before; and that means that you will love him or hate him even more than you already do. For those that hate him, you will find more reasons to hate him. For those that love him, you will find more reasons to love him. It has plenty of "red meat" for everybody, regardless of political persuasion; and that's a good thing in my view. There's nothing worse than reporting that biased and intended to shape your opinions to the political right or left; because that's not really reporting, that's called propaganda. Bush at War is the real deal, un-salted and raw. It's up to you to spice it, cook it, chew it, digest it, and decide if it sits well with you or not.
For added entertainment, here are just a few notable quotes that stood out for me:
Bush on Iraq:
"Action was not for strategic purposes or defensive purposes, [Bush] said. ` You see...Condi didn't want me to talk about it (Iraq). We'll see whether this bears out, [but] clearly there will be a strategic implication to a regime change in Iraq, if we go forward. But there's something beneath that, as far as I'm concerned, and that is, there is immense suffering.' "
"As we think through Iraq, we may or may not attack. I have no idea yet. But it will be for the objective of making the world more peaceful."
Bush on North Korea's leader:
"...`I loathe Kim Jong Il!' Bush shouted, waving his finger in the air. `I've got a visceral reaction to this guy, because he is starving his people...' "
Bush on unilateralism: "I mean, you know, if you want to hear resentment, just listen to the word unilateralism. I mean, that's resentment. If somebody wants to try and to say something ugly about us, `Bush is a unilateralist, America is unilateral.' You know, which I find amusing. But I'm also-I've been to meetings where there a kind of `we must not act until we're all in agreement.' " He continues, "...well, we're never going to get people all in agreement about force and the use of force. But action--confident action that will yield positive results provides kind of a slipstream into which reluctant nations and leaders can get behind..."
Woodward on Cheney and Powell:
"Cheney and Powell went at each other in a blistering argument. It was Powell's internationalism versus Cheney's unilateralism."
Condi on Nukes:
"I've been in this business for a long time and people always underestimate the time, they rarely overestimate the time [it will take a country to become capable of building nuclear weapons]. If we're wrong and we had four or five or six years before he posed a nuclear threat, then we just went in early. If anyone willing to wait is wrong, then we wake up in two or three years, and Saddam has a nuclear weapon and is brandishing it in the most volatile region in the world. So which of these chances do you want to take? The lesson of September 11: Take care of threats early."
Bush on his role:
"I'm the commander--see, I don't need to explain--I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192250339_.gif){kind=small}
