Customer Reviews

State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III

5 star:		(182)
4 star:		(96)
3 star:		(22)
2 star:		(9)
1 star:		(13)

 

 

I couldn't put this book down. And what I read inside it last night scared me. In short the message of this 600-page expose is this: we are being led by an administration that is unapproachably isolated from reality, our troops are facing unrelenting violence from guerilla fighters abroad, things are growing more violent, and even the Iraqi people wish we'd leave.

I emerged from reading State of Denial, the follow-up to Woodward's two previous books concerning the Bush administration, not only shaken and depressed but renewed in my sympathy for those American troops enduring the nightmare that is my nation's ongoing and misguided military presence in the crumbling, nominal country of Iraq. This book is beyond pessimistic but its message that things will only get worse in the future is backed up by data and testimony that seems all but undeniable. Here Woodward has interviewed top policy makers and those who were or are involved in running our shallow national policy on the Iraq War. As a result Donald Rumsfeld is exposed as a dictatorial yes-man whose frequent careless mistakes have cost many lives. It is revealed that a number of insiders, including the First Lady pleaded with the President to replace Rumsfeld with someone else: preferably an old guard GOP figure like James Baker. Tommy Franks and other generals are shown as short-sighted and clueless figures, often hamstrung by Washington, unable to plan for those long-term goals that should have followed an apparently easy victory in 2003.

One thing that jumped out at me was the raw statistic that attacks against US forces are currently occurring almost quarter-hourly, and of course it's not news but shocking to hear again how radical Islamists are flocking to Iraq from nations thousands of miles removed, all for the chance to secure for themselves a "martyrdom" as they conduct assaults on American forces. This war is a quagmire and State of Denial--aptly named!---makes that very clear. It was entered into on false pretenses, conducted without a clear plan of execution and with scant exit strategy, and even the supposed justification for why we are there has shifted as the Bush administration re-defines its puzzling crusade from season to season. Woodward reveals how the President's own staff are as divided by the Iraq War as is the American citizenry at large. Those who sycophantically bow to Mr. Bush stick around in high-ranking governmental positions, and those who voice opposition to our out-of-control leadership soon find themselves ostracized---as was Colin Powell---or removed from their jobs altogether.

After reading Mr. Woodward's book I feel the mess our President almost singled-handedly got this country into four years ago is at this point all-but hopeless in terms of victory ever coming or a pro-democracy future ever existing in Iraq. A small group of people have created for the entire world a very large and bloody fiasco.

State of Denial, the third book in famed journalist Bob Woodward's examination of the Bush administration's approach to war, is sure to be one of the most controversial. State of Denial looks at the policy decisions and inner maneuverings of the administration as America got deeper and deeper into the quagmire that is the Iraq War. As one can see by the reviews already up on Amazon, emotions are running high since Woodward has taken a decidedly harsh view towards the administration. Ironically for Woodward, he was taken to task for being an administration cheerleader in the first two volumes. What State of Denial shows us is that no matter your personal politics, it's important to understand why decisions were made, who were making them, and what people inside the government are saying about the conduct of the war to date. Woodward accomplished that quite well here, thanks to interviews with many of the key players in the process (though notably not with the President and Vice-President.)

One of the main focuses of the book is Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who has been under heavy criticism for his heavy-handed management of the war and his failures to make tactical and strategic adjustments. Rumsfeld is in charge of a Pentagon intent on spending billions on high tech and unnecessary weapon systems like the F-22, the DDG-1000 destroyer, and the Army FCS while making little effort on raising the overall troop strength of the Army and Marine Corps. Even with the chorus of military and politicians calling for Rumsfeld's firing, it still comes as a surprise that Andrew Card, Bush's chief of staff and top advisor was pushing for Rumsfeld's ouster as early as 2004. Woodward also claims Card enlisted First Lady Laura Bush in the effort, a story that seems somewhat apocryphal. In several in-depth interviews with Woodward, Rumsfeld comes across as honest, arrogant, and firmly believing in his own success despite the torrent of criticism he receives from the military and NSC staffers interviewed for the book.

Some of the newer nuggets of information offered in the book are fascinating. Woodward reveals that then National Security Advisor Condi Rice was briefed in July 2001 by CIA Director George Tenet and CIA counter-terror expert Cofer Black on the increasing likelihood of an attack on US interests. Woodward discusses how Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, was a key player in advising President Bush before and after 9/11. Another of the book's most interesting revelations is that Henry Kissinger regularly advises President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. Considering Kissinger's status as the architect of a failed Vietnam policy, this tidbit only reinforces Woodward's assertion that the administration refuses to do anything other than "stay the course." Throughout the book the administration is portrayed as as blind to the reality of the Iraq War as it was eager to paint a rosy public picture, ignoring or classifying facts that didn't fit its view of success and labeling those who disagreed as negative and not "team players."

As with many other Woodward books, the book reads quickly and quite cleanly. The level of detail is impressive, and State of Denial expands upon the material covered by James Risen and Thomas Ricks. The material on Bremer and his disasterous tenure as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority was adroitly addressed in detail in Rajiv Chandrasekaran's Imperial Life in the Emerald City, and Woodward doesn't add anything new in that regard. One wonders how much of the material given by Woodward's sources is slanted to better represent their role in history's judgemental eye and how much is actual truth. Woodward lays out the material in its entirety from the many sources, and lets the reader decide which is revisionist and which is reality. Partisans on both side will either love or hate this book regardless of its content, but as a whole this book is fair and balanced. Woodward is no partisan attack dog, he is a journalist committed to telling a story fairly and accurately without regard to what his critics may think. Highly Recommended.

A.G. Corwin
St. Louis, MO

State of Denial" documents the Bush administration's Iraq debacle from the beginning. First there are Bush's initial rationale for becoming (our least-prepared modern-day) president prior to completing his first term as Texas' governor - basing his entire rationale on tax cuts, modernizing the military (eg. missile defense), education reform (Bush's major Texas "success" in Houston turned out to be a fraud), and helping faith-based initiatives (no thoughts whatsoever about foreign policy). Another Bush motivation to run, per Prince Bandar, Saudi Arabia's Ambassador, was to get revenge for his father's defeat by Clinton/Gore; then there was the smoldering need for finishing the job on Saddam Hussein. (Needless to say, these do not total to good rationale for becoming U.S. President, nor are they indicative of a serious thinker.)

Selecting Cheney as V.P. running-mate also helped set things in the wrong direction - his bias towards finding evidence of WMD (eg. digging into unverified intelligence cables), focus on secrecy and regaining executive powers underlay much of the Iraq War marketing. Then there was Bush's selection of Rumsfeld for Secretary of Defense - partly based on the idea of proving Bush #1 wrong (didn't trust Rumsfeld, thought him too self-sure and arrogant), and Rumsfeld's subsequent selection of Joint Chiefs Chairmen that were easy to roll over (eg. reduce requested Iraq troop strength; fail to take their issues directly to Bush, per Nichols-Goldwater).

(Failing to send enough troops into Iraq probably is the single most disastrous mistake made in Iraq War II, other than invading in the first place. However, it may be unfair to blame Rumsfeld - the Bush administration "group-think" (except for Powell) was that we'd be out of Iraq within a few months; further, it is doubtful that the U.S. has the troops to sustain levels the generals believed were needed. On the other hand, Rumsfeld has no excuse for not immediately taking action to improve vehicle armor against IEDs, failing to create a military strategy - besides aggravating all Iraqis through night-time raids, then driving up and down the roads allowing them the opportunity for IED revenge - to achieve security, and failing to create a set of 3-5 key performance measures and goals.)

Deeper into the plot we get CIA Director Tenet's July 2001 effort to convince Rice to make terrorism a priority, only to get the "brush-off" from her - Woodward documents that no terrorism plan was even made ready for approval until 9/10 (after eight other issues), hardly the priority Rice claims. Far worse, if the FBI had simply been focused and monitored one of the two hijackers it knew were in the country, it would have learned that he bought ten tickets for himself and other terrorists for those fateful 9/11 flights - possibly unraveling the entire plot!

"State of Denial" continues on to assemble other key pieces, including Bush's stubbornness, over-reliance on Cheney and Rumsfeld, and lack of curiosity (probably also the reason Bush #1 did not communicate his serious Iraq concerns pre-invasion), Rice's inability to challenge others' thinking, to move beyond "you're not on the team" vs. dissenters, follow-up on action items, and failure to update Iraq planning as the situation changed, Bremer's extremely damaging decisions (delaying elections and turnover of power, disbanding the Iraq army, de-Baathing the nation), Powell's failure to use his moral authority to confront Bush, and an incredible administration-wide inability to make decisions in an open and inclusive manner, set goals, delegate, pursue performance descepancies, resolve disagreements (eg. assign responsibility for postwar Iraq security), or follow-up. (How did he ever get through Harvard Business School?) Meanwhile, as the "Iraqis stand up" (hundreds of thousands of trained police and army recruits), we fail to "stand down" because the number of attacks continually increases - despite Bush's constant claims of progress.

Bottom Line: President Bush, our first "MBA president" both lacks the requisite experience and skills, and is psychologically unfit to lead the nation; to compensate he focuses on being a "cheerleader" (simply willing things to happen), and distorts and withholds information.

Being right about this administration's `direction' in Iraq has not been a good experience; dissent seriously gets portrayed as opposing national security--as if the two principles cannot ever and do not ever coexist. Even as the evidence literally piles up to indicate otherwise, the president and his *remaining* cronies continue insisting their way is THE way which America must follow. The current ideological impasse is the consequential end result from their honest inability to work in reality!

One of America's most venerated (if not also infamous) investigative journalist succinctly restates our case in his most recent book. At this point, it's not that he is making the case that Bush is a dangerous incompetent; it's at this particular point in this specific administration and pulling all of the information together with his conclusion. Their elaborate house of cards now rapidly falls down, but the Bush administration officials honestly continue on believing that their public policy is totally workable because they have constructed policy which intentionally does not require functioning in a state of reality.

Since one of the general criticisms of Bush and his administration is their being locked away in `fantasy world' reading this work filled me with both a sense of comedic relief and ironic dejavu. How much further will America have to slide into chaos before we finally leave Iraq?

Interviews conducted with Former White House Press Secretary Andrew Card drive home the point that Iraq was an operation just waiting to be bungled and the Administration knew how badly things were going all while feeding the American people spin otherwise. Card comes across as the most likeable one in this entanglement because he knew when to leave the White House while Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush are determined to stick with Iraq even while their own evidence indicates that a change in policy will be a perfectly acceptable (if at least rational) option. However, this administration has a standing aversion to operating on rational thought!

This book isn't light reading by far, but it is important reading. Sure, we joke about their `dim' policymaking processes, but documented results of the Bush administration's processes were laid out right here. I will even go as far to say that it should be on the `required reading' lists of all people before we head out to the polls this November.

I've read all three of Woodward's "Bush" books, State of Denial presents a very different picture of Bush and the White house than the previous two. The picture that emerges is of a White House intent on using disinformation to deceive the public. This same White House is portrayed to be awash in political infighting, and to lack a leader with the vision to produce an appropriate long term strategy. In SoD Woodward presents information that shows that although disinformation has been part of the approach to Iraq from the start, it reached a much higher level during the 2004 campaign. Information is presented clearly demonstrating that the Bush administration wasn't interested in the threat of terrorism on US soil prior to 9/11.

Now, much of this information has been available in less reputable sources for quite a while. What Woodward accomplishes is to provide a well reasoned and researched indictment of the Bush White House. Time will tell if the facts in here are correct, but assuming the majority are the conclusion is that the US has been poorly served by an incompetent government.

It is a dispassionate account from Bob Woodward that will provide some new information for people who already suspected this is an incompetent administration taking the fork in the road of misdirection. For those people who have tanked the book without having read it, the title is probably prophetic.

Two things will jump out at you even before you get to chapter 10. Donald Rumsfeld is what most of us thought he was and more--or less. Rumsfeld wanted absolute control. That meant that he would keep the joint chiefs under his thumb, and stifle independent opinion they were supposed to provide to the president of the United States.

The second is that Condi Rice, then National Security Advisor, was warned by George Tenet of an impending aerial attack upon the US by al Qaeda on July 10, 2001. According to Tenet, she was out to mental lunch. She wasn't interested. The State Department has since verified the meeting. (So much for blaming Clinton.)

Enter L. Paul Bremer who disbands the Iraqi army and bureacracy giving them nothing to do but join a growing insurgency. Bremer can't even get money to bribe the Iraqis with a stipend they would have been happy with--$6.00 per month! (In Bremer's self-serving autobiography he states that the army was already disbanded by the time he got there.)

But then the book comes back to reality which is to say it returns to Cloud Nine where Cheney filters Bush's information, Rumsfeld weasels out of responsibility and direct questions with condescension, and Mr. Bush surrounds himself with upbeat and enthusiastic advisors who refuse to give him a dose of reality. When it does come, it is rationalized away. It is also clear that the joint chiefs are grovelling at the knees of His Arrogancy, Don Rumsfeld who wounds the finest military in the world on a daily basis. Even the chairman of the joint chief appears imbecilic with the comment: "Sure I believe in the war. We were minding our own business when they attacked us [Iraq]. This is the General Peter Pace.

Woodward respects his readers enough here to present events, dates and facts without embellishment or distortion.

"State of Denial" is not about a river in Egypt. Unfortunately, it's about denial on the banks of the Potomac.

"President Bush emerges as a passive, impatient, sophomoric and intellectually incurious leader, presiding over a grossly dysfunctional war cabinet and given to an almost religious certainty that makes him disinclined to rethink or re-evaluate decisions he has made about the war. It's a portrait that stands in stark contrast to the laudatory one Mr. Woodward drew in 'Bush at War,' his 2002 book, which depicted the president -- in terms that the White House press office itself has purveyed -- as a judicious, resolute leader, blessed with the 'vision thing' his father was accused of lacking and firmly in control of the ship of state. "As this new book's title indicates, Mr. Woodward now sees Mr. Bush as a president who lives in a state of willful denial about the worsening situation in Iraq...."New York Times

All of the advanced press for this book has opened old wounds. Or should I say wounds that have been festering. Many of us have had our doubts about the Iraq War, but now many of our doubts are realized. Mr. Woodward, with the assistance of 75 people in the administration, President Bush included, has given us a first hand version of what we have all feared. We have been duped. We have heard stories from those who have left the administration, that the War was hatched by Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Rumsfeld, and fed to the President. President Bush knew when he agreed to enter into Afghanistan after 9/11 that Iraq was the next stop. VP Cheney had an organized mission to get Saddam and to render him useless. General Powell saw this and tried to stop the madness but nothing was to be gained. We went to Iraq, and if we had had a competent plan we could have ended the war within the first 3 weeks. Here we are now 4 years later and the War is taking its toll. According to Bob Woodward's book, there is an insurgent attack every 15 minutes against our soldiers, 4 attacks an hour, or 96 a day. At that rate, there are 672 attacks a week( that figure was provided by Brian, who commented on the math and provided the correct numbers ) we the public were not told of the severity of the attacks. Yet we hear of the body bags returning ion a daily basis.

The entire White House staff was at odds over the war and to this day the conflict continues. Colin Powell followed the President, only because he is such a good soldier. It should be noted that those who were in opposition are no longer at the White House. President Bush stays assured that he is following the right path. "Woodward also tells Wallace that aged Republican war-horse Henry Kissinger is closely advising Bush, telling him there is no exit strategy other than victory."Woodward adds. 'This is so fascinating. Kissinger's fighting the Vietnam War again because, in his view, the problem in Vietnam was we lost our will.'

"President Bush is absolutely certain that he has the U.S. and Iraq on the right course, says Woodward. So certain is the president on this matter, Woodward says, that when Mr. Bush had key Republicans to the White House to discuss Iraq, he told them, 'I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me.'" Washington Post.

This is a book for every American to read. Interviews with the top people involved can only give a story that is to be believed. Bob Woodward has written this book in his usual style. He interviews the people who knew what was going on, many of them behind the scenes, and then reports the facts as they were told. He gives us a timeline and a sense that this war was well planned. The generals who would lead this war, in particular, Gen. Tommy Franks, had a year in which to plan and to build the infrastructure necessary for a war that this administration found to be apt and just. We are learning that all is not what it seemed, and we are left to pick up the pieces of this war. How did this happen? Why have we allowed this to continue? Questions with answers that are just beginning to surface.

Recommended. prisrob 9-30-06

I'm sick of reading negative reviews of State of Denial and I pity the people who refuse to see the facts. Don't label me a liberal because I don't respect either party at this point. The truth is that Woodward helped to bring down Tricky Dick who was in fact guilty. At least Nixon had a grip on reality and had the guts to resign. After Watergate, Woodward could have coasted on his reputation for the rest of his life. Instead, he did what any responsible journalist should do and reported that the present administration has been misleading the American people. The only thing that has improved in Iraq and Aghanistan is war profiteering and ultimately Bush is reponsible.

Typically, conservatives will read the book, laugh at how superior they are to liberals, and shrug it off. Liberals will read the book, pick another loser Presidential candidate, and feel bad about the waste of money, resources, and human lives.

When you begin State of Denial it grips your interest immediately. I found that the time and pages flew by
(excepts for the parts I re-read to be sure I had read it correctly) and I didn't want to put it down. In fact, I was actually told that the place I was reading was closing and I had to leave. When I picked up the book the cashier at the bookstore said that he was going to buy the book and start it on his break because it was "flying" off the shelves. It's discounted everywhere and even if not it's well worth the $$.

Between this book and the Generals who testified on Capital Hill the other day about the need to be rid of Rumsfield, for example. Those who continue to deny the facts about Bush AND his administration need to give into their natural "congnitive dissonance," forget about saving face, and support the changes needed to remedy the mistakes in Iraq so our country and perhaps much of the free world can be saved. If you think I am histrionic, it's not so.

Until recently I wanted very much for us to pull our troops out of Iraq. After listening to the Generals and processing the information in this book and other reliable sources I have changed my mind and now believe that we have no choice but to stay and fix the problems in Iraq. The need for a change in leadership (DOD) and budgetary changes is absolute for this to occur.

The book is just another interesting piece of the puzzle - it's not a mind blower if you'd paid attention to current events. It's just fascinating read that can put the leadership into perspective for those who are unwilling to face facts (blind Bush supporters).

Woodward's new book, State of Denial, shines light on some of America's dark and perplexing issues relating to the war in Iraq.

Woodward depicts:
* Bush as a president living in a state of denial about the deteriorating conditions in Iraq
* Rumsfeld as a tyrant who used the power of his position to force a weak Joint Chiefs of Staff to back off and obey his wishes.
* Tenent, former CIA Director, as having reasons to avoid a war against Iraq, but not taking his case to the President
* Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as ineffective in coordinating key planning agencies of the government
* Powell as opposed to the war but ignored by the White House and the Pentagon
* Bremer, Iraqi administrator, having briefed Rice about the pressing need for more troops, as being ignored
* Cheney as being so intent in attempting to prove the existence of weapons of mass destruction that he was in denial of any proof to the contrary.

Although a lot of what is in the Book is known to those who follow the news accounts of the war on terrorism, the Book draws a more complete picture of the war backed by new quotes and insights.

The Book, which makes a strong case for a regime change in the White House, is an important contribution to those who wish to know how the country is being run.