Rating: 
Summary: great book; left me with a few questions
Review: This is a great book, if only for the level of access that Woodward got to Bush's inner circle. But you can read about that in other reviews, so I'll concentrate on the questions the book raised in my mind.(1) The Tenet "slam dunk" issue. Here's a quote the book: (from pages 249-250): From McLaughlin's presentation,
[Bush chief of staff Andrew] Card was worried that there
might be no "there there," but Tenet's double reassurance on
the slam dunk was memorable and comforting. Cheney could
think of no reason to question Tenet's assertion. He was,
after all, the head of the CIA and would know the most. The
president later recalled that McLaughlin's presentation
"wouldn't have stood the test of time." But, said Bush,
Tenet's reassurance-"That was very important."
"Needs a lot more work," Bush told Card and Rice. "Let's get
some people who've actually put together a case for a jury."
He wanted some lawyers, prosecutors if need be. They were
going to have to go public with something.
The president told Tenet several times, "Make sure no one
stretches to make our case." Great words from the President here. But this episode took place in December. Starting in September, Woodward reports, (page 178) "Bush asserted unequivocally, 'Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction.'" In fact, Bush repeatedly expressed his certainty that Iraq possessed WMDs all through that autumn. So my question is: Why is Bush asking Tenet in december about evidence for WMDs when he's been publicly telling the nation there's no doubt for the past four months? Woodward failed to ask this question, and I think it's a key one. (2) From the Woodward book and other sources, we know that Bush prays for guidance from God for his key decisions. I think it's a fair assumption he asked God about the WMDs. In any case, Bush told the us (Woodward, page 189): "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more." Then he added, "And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given." Since he presumably checked that statement with God, and the statement turned out to be false, there are only a few possibilities here: (a) God told Bush to lie to us, or (b) God lied to Bush. Neither one sounds much like the God I've always heard about, so we're left with an unhappy third choice: (c) Bush thinks he's hearing from God, but at least part of the time he's wrong about that. That's a pretty scary prospect, and it seems to be the most likely scenario. Anyway, I wish Woodward had pressed Bush on this point as well. Never the less, I think it's a great book, sheds alot of light on Bush's decision making processes, and is well worth reading.
Rating: 
Summary: Blowing Smoke for Bush
Review: Why is Bob Woodward's latest book, "Plan of Attack," is being promoted by the administration? Because it portrays an in-charge President Bush and presents him as genuinely concerned (and seemingly misled) over the threat posed by Iraq's "weapons of mass-destruction." Unfortunately, the nation's most-famous investigative reporter got it wrong. You would not know from Woodward's book that the CIA's National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction - used with Congress to hype the threat - was written several months after the administration decided to make war on Iraq. That decision had little to do with WMD or with supposed ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda. It had everything to do with the imperative seen by Bush's neoconservative advisers to gain dominant influence over strategic, oil-rich Iraq and to eliminate any possible threat to Israel's security. With that twin aim, the rationale was generally consistent with several decades of U.S. policy objectives in the Middle East. Where the Bush administration broke new ground was in its decision to launch a preemptive war when there was nothing to preempt. To honest analysts - including some within the "coalition of the willing" - the actual U.S. purpose was a no-brainer. Australian intelligence analysts, for example, had done their homework in reading the neoconservatives' rationale in the documents of the Project for a New American Century and were able to make confident judgments regarding underlying U.S. motives. Senior Australian intelligence analyst Andrew Wilkie has testified to his Parliament that Australian intelligence gave his government "detailed assessments in which it was made very clear that the U.S. was intent on invading Iraq for more important reasons than WMD and terrorism. Hence, all this talk about WMD and terrorism was hollow." The U.S. Congress was not likely to acquiesce in attacking Iraq on the basis of the strategic vision of the neoconservatives. Rather, it was necessary to coerce our lawmakers by conjuring up ominous specters like the frequently adduced "mushroom cloud." Enter the NIE on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction prepared hurriedly in September 2002. Secretary of State Colin Powell has admitted that the target audience for the Estimate was Congress. The NIE and its various initial drafts became the centerpiece of a successful campaign to persuade our elected representatives to relinquish to the executive the war-making power vested solely in them by the framers of the Constitution. Hyping the evidence on WMD in classified briefings for Congress proved relatively easy; making a persuasive public case for WMD in Iraq was a tougher challenge. According to Bob Woodward -erstwhile junkyard dog of Watergate and, more recently, domesticated administration chronicler - CIA Director George Tenet and his deputy were called to the White House on December 21, 2002 to rehearse the case for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In his book "Plan of Attack," Woodward reports that when the briefing was over Bush turned to Tenet and remarked, "I've been told all this intelligence about having WMD and this is the best we've got?" Woodward writes that Tenet assured the president that it was "a slam-dunk case," and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who was there, has confirmed Woodward's account. The next 45 days were devoted to fortifying the evidence in preparation for Colin Powell's key speech at the U.N. on February 5, 2003. But as in the case of the earlier NIE, almost none of Powell's assertions regarding WMD in Iraq have stood the test of time. Powell has even conceded publicly that he was misled on the existence of the Iraqi "bio-trailers" to which he gave such prominence, and says he has had "discussions" with the CIA about this particular embarrassment. That the White House has been promoting Woodward's book (Rice wasted no time in saying she is sure it is "terrific") reflects the administration's determination to keep the focus on the cover story for the war, WMD, and obscure the actual motives regarding oil and Israel. And if, with no WMD to be found, the U.S. media or political opponents press home the point about going to war on false pretenses, Woodward's book will provide useful yarn for White House spinners claiming the president was misled by faulty intelligence. And the slam-dunker can be left hanging on the rim of the basket, twisting in the wind, so to speak, until he falls of his own weight. By design, this would blow still more smoke over the actual reasons for the war. But for Tenet it would bring a certain poetic justice. For the unforgivable sin in intelligence analysis is telling the policymaker what he wants to hear -justifying with cooked "intelligence" what he has already decided to do. Sycophancy has no place in intelligence work, and particularly not on issues of war and peace.
Rating: 
Summary: What the White House was thinking
Review: Bob Woodward's revealing new book, "Plan of Attack" is a clear window into what went on behind closed doors at the White House as the United States moved closer to war in Iraq. It is really two books in one. The first segment, (90% of the book) deals with President Bush and his small cadre of advisors gradually preparing for war. Woodward lets the principal players speak largely for themselves and what is disclosed is an administration keen on the attack (except for Colin Powell and Richard Armitage) but one with little insight or knowledge as to what to do with Iraq once the United States had achieved a military victory. It is not surprising to have diverse views in a cabinet, especially at times of impending battle, but Woodward implies a somewhat spokesless pattern to the war's preparation. It seems increasingly certain the Bush White House intended to go to war and to plan it anyway they could. The one part of this book that is almost amusing to read (were the mission not so dangerous) concerns the ROCKSTARS...the CIA contacts within Iraq. These sections often read like a spy novel and add drama to an otherwise excellent but sometimes plodding account. What is reserved for the epilogue (the second "book") is the most telling part of "Plan of Attack". Woodward describes through his interviews where we have come since last year, and not suprisingly, it isn't a rosy picture. He would certainly have a few more things to add since the book's publication a few weeks ago. For those admirers of the president one might see a hands-on, determined leader. For others though, there is a sense that "maybe we didn't do this right" and with such blind faith resolution it becomes more and more apparent that the Bush administration has painted itself into a corner. A post-mortem thought that Armitage had (where he wondered if he and Powell hadn't become the "enablers" of this war) struck a nerve in me. Surely it would have been an uphill battle for them to change any minds in this administration but given the present-day situation in Iraq one can only speculate how things could have gone better.
Rating:
Summary: Raises questions, but no one seems interested...
Review: This book is based on interviews with the administration. Bob Woodward has previously been the darling of the Bush administration. Even though even his first book is a bit worrying. For instance when the president claims he does not have to explain his decisions to anyone. Here we clearly read that Bush immediately started planning for an attack on Iraq. He even directed money from the Afghanistan campaign. Would that not call for some serious questioning of the administration? Also I find the statemant that the president claims that he follows a "higher father" than his own frankly alarming. Is he not supposed to serve the American people, here on Earth?
Rating:
Summary: Suddenly there seemed to be no penalty for taking risks
Review: Suddenly there seemed to be no penalty for taking risks and making mistakes The phrase troubled me; it seems like coming from the cold war era, and from the other side of the earth: behind the iron curtain. The book is excellent as most of the reviewers say; the writing is fluent so that you are unable to stop. There is plenty of information, as well as authoritative and obviously very truly telling of facts. No body would think that Woodward would jeopardize his long hard worked credibility for any reason. The book is also anti-Bush after all. What the US presidential "campaign" tell about it or promote for it is merely a strategic planning to reduce its overall damage (something that any MBA's graduate will smartly understand), since -unfortunately- the presidency of the greatest country in history is ruled like a corporate. The pride of boldness in taking serious decisions is closed to video games standards: when someone try to build the means and go to war using all horrible and very deadly weapons, knowing that ultimately he will never get hurt. What is astonishing according to the book is the lack, or better says, the non-existence of any planning or even thinking of how to install democracy in Iraq and make it work. It looked like shark policy: shoot first and then ask questions. Everybody -except Powell- was thinking of getting the dictator "toasted", control Iraq and eliminate an illusionary danger. The result was -I think- catastrophic. With the current news emanating from this destroyed country, it became clear that the US became an enemy to most of the Iraqis, or a very heavy guest in the most optimistic prediction, regardless to the resonating effects across the region. The plan simply covered the attack and its marketing, but never looked beyond to the aftermath. However, the book does not give an account about why the US went to war, why it was necessary to spend these billions and cause almost 30,000 lives to be lost. I assume these facts need another narrator to illustrate... maybe in a decade. Meanwhile we read this book and try no to forget the remaining of the story whilst we are waiting.
Rating:
Summary: plan of attack
Review: readable-clearly according to the author-there were too few troops sent to the Iraq war situation
Rating:
Summary: conspiracy theory
Review: We had to show the rest of the world not to mess with the United States after 911
and Irak was the perfect target. Even when WMD have not been found at this point,
OIL((why don't we go to Africa? because there is none.) was the main reason behind all this drama. This country is running out of oil and the oil prices are sky rocketing right now and if Bush doesn't do anything about it, he might loose the next elections. We found the perfect "excuse" to take over this country. i understand that....money, personal interest, it could not have been better. Now, the problem is that this is becoming another Vietnam and our soldiers and Marines are dying everyday.
There is no way we are going to change their mentallity. We are doing what we can but if they don't want our help, we should step back (i don't see this happenning because we are winning this war no matter what), let the UN take over(if they really can do something about it) and just make sure that another dictator doesn't take over Irak's country. But anyway, this a good start to promote democracy in those countries but there is nothing we can do if they don't want our help.
The book is very well written and contains a lot of facts and of course, we
do not have access to all the behind-the-scene stories. I think this book only shows 5% of all the events but again, WE had to attack somebody after 911!!!
Get the book if you want to find out more about this 5%, the other 95% of the story will be hidden for years to come. time will tell. We need more books like this to be written so can have an idea of what is really happening.
I really feel sorry for our soldiers and Marines...we don't want another Vietnam. I hope we are doing the right thing.
Rating:
Summary: great read.
Review: This was a great read. For other recommendations similar to Woodward's Plan of Attack, visit www.campaign2004.com
Rating:
Summary: Very informative. Kudos for President Bush!
Review: Well I finally went out and purchased the book. After listening to Kerry making speaches and referring to information in the book and then hearing Bob Woodward the author say "That's not in the book", "I never said that" "I don't know where Kerry got his information" I knew I would have to read this for myself.
I found the book to be very informative and it was obvious that it was not intended to be another one of those smear books. He was on a fact finding mission. Although Woodward renders opinions that are not based on any facts he makes it clear that it is only an opinion.
The author points out here what a thoughful man our president is. President Bush does not base his decisions on the political polls or which way the wind blows. His decisions for this war were based on protecting America.
After seeing the review from the man from Baltimore I had to question if we even read the same book? Talk about IQ, this reviewer needs to read for comprehension, Old Albert must work for CNN. Bottom line here is don't rely on information from others regarding the content of the book. If you are truly interested in the subject matter you will need to read it for yourself.
Rating:
Summary: A must read- dont rely on others to tell you what's in it.
Review: Perhaps some politically motivated people on both ends of the spectrum would interpret passages of this book, and point to it gleefully and say "there, there's the fact". A similar issue occurs when some people read Religious Books, and point to a specific passage. This book is outstanding in the authors ability to take multiple interviews and bring them together in a timeline. Occasionally Woodward inserts his stated opinions "it seems to me..." but these are clear and concise - and never take the place of the direct quotes of several people in the current and previous administration. This book is a must read to understand the military planning (Rumsfeld's thinking) in the movement towards the action in Iraq. The challenges to change the current thinking patterns in the Pentagon and in the military chain of command are a monumental task - after all, changing everything about how we learned (and have taught our commanders to go to war) is no small task. Woodward is good at documenting Rumsfeld's desire for more speed coupled with a huge sledgehammer blow over a slow transit of overwhelming force. Is this a political book? I didn't think so, and I am a td more conservative than some, a bit more liberal than some. Is it a damning indictment of the White House? No. We do get to see how information flows, what is requested. True, Woodward was not there for every discussion. But the book transmits the idea that he was there for some very crucial ones. It's worth it.
| 
