Rating: 
Summary: Trademark Woodward
Review: If journalism is the first draft of history, then Plan of Attack is the second. The book is biased in the way a newspaper's foreign policy story is: When "high-level official sources" are the only sources, and they're all on the same page/talking points, you're only getting one side of the story. (Powell gripes, to the dismay of conservative loyalists, but mostly goes along). Woodward is, in liberal media critic language, a "mouthpiece for power." But he is *more than* open about that. And he would apply the same methods no matter *who* was in power. In short, claims of Woodward's bias should be a non-issue. Plan of Attack is SO objective, like any Woodward book, it reads very dry.... like a 400 page newspaper article -- short sentances, short paragraphs, short sections, cold sober language. It's rare that I look ahead to see "how many pages are left in this chapter," but I did with this book. Woodward is an invaluable treasure... (you're waiting for it)... BUT... writers who inject their opinions and biases (Gore Vidal to William Buckley) seem much more interesting. This book is almost like a homework assignment. And the lack of flavor/emotion makes it hard to remember passages once the book is put down. Maybe if he threw in some astrology stories, or thrown lamps, or embellishments:-). If you've found Woodward books tiresome, you might try audio. I rarely go for tapes, but Woodward's "Veil" on tape is always in my "mix". Woodward is the one example I know where audio seems better.... Anyway, if you're looking for an objective take on foreign policy planning, Plan of Attack is the one.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting, but not up to Woodward's usual standards
Review: Bush At War and The Agenda were terrific books, and showed why Woodward gets the high profile interviews, even with sitting presidents. Woodward's philosophy seemed to be "I report, you decide," as he told the story through the eyes of those he interviewed, rather than through his own eyes. In Plan Of Attack, Woodward departs from this practice, and feels the need to editorialize in rather subtle ways. Rather than say Bush would not answer a question, he would make a show of it by asking the question several times to emphasize evasiveness. Rather than use quotes from Colin Powell about how Powell felt about the war, Woodward dismisses Powell's positive remarks about Bush as just "being a good soldier," which immediately suggests that Powell is lying, but in a respectable way. Unlike his previous books, Woodward's reporting appears designed to score some political points. Plan Of Attack is hardly a partisan screed, and I don't think Woodward is trying to trash the administration. But unlike his other books, I don't think he's just trying to tell the story of what happened, either, as seen through the eyes of witnesses. Like almost all other reporters, he has succumbed to the temptation to interpret what he has seen and heard. And that lowers him to just another, run-of-the-mill reporter.
Rating:
Summary: Is it journalism? History? Neither? Both?--you decide.
Review: Bob Woodward has written upwards of 20 books about various organs of the Government (the military, the Supreme Court, the CIA, and so forth. He has developed a reputation for accuracy and honesty in his narratives to the point that he enjoys what seems to e virtually unlimited access into the deepest recesses of the American government. This is a remarkable book from that point of view. How is it that Woodward can access the Presidency and the highest levels of the executive branch of government during some of the most critical and turbulent times in recent American history as thoroughly as this? This access presents Woodward with an opportunity that poses great risk. That arises from the fact that this book represents what I would call "reconstructive" history. Granted, Woodward had unparalleled access to these people. However, he writes often almost in the first person. It's one thing to hear in an interview, for example, that "Powell had reservations about the war." That's a long way from the text, where Powell's thoughts are expressed wholly formed and in detail. This is the enigma of the Woodward style. His books are generally considered to be very accurate and true to his subjects, but at a certain level they are, in fact, almost historical fiction. Is this Journalism? History? Both? Neither? You decide. The book itself is well laid out, competently conveys a lot of complex material in an easily understood format, and does an admirable job of providing an overall context for the often heated and chaotic decision-making process about whether or not to go to war with Iraq. The unfortunate aspect of the book is that it has become a political weapon for those either supportive or opposed to Bush. The value of the book is not so much in the aspects of personal and political motivations it reveals--as interesting as all that may be--but rather in the picture it paints of how these high level decision making processes work in the White House. Personally, I think Woodward the author would have been much better served by waiting till after the election to release this. Woodward the talking head is obviously thriving with an early release, but the process of politicizing the book robs it of much of its value.
Rating:
Summary: review to end all reviews
Review: Woodward's account of the details is accurate and no one denies this. However, what the details mean and the intentions behind them is up for debate.
Rating: 
Summary: THE WHITE HOUSE RECOMMENDS READING THIS BOOK
Review: (For those of you who have accused this book of being just another anti-Bush book)
Rating:
Summary: Read the book before you trash it.
Review: Woodward was allowed access to Bush's advisors and appointees - by BUSH. Bush sat for more than one interview with the author. Major cabinet officers contributed information and interviews. This is NOT an outsider's attack on the Bush White House. It IS an accurate portrayal of the events leading up to war. The people have a right to know why we went to war - exactly why - and this book helps lift the cloak on the truth behind the decision to send in the military, against the advise of most major allies and the UN. History will judge the war, but this book is a clear portrayal of how we got there. Woodward's style is neither glib nor cluttered, but it is easy to follow complicated events.
Rating: 
Summary: Just another Anti-Bush Book written by a money-hound
Review: It seems that the way to create a best selling book is write anything that attacks Pres. Bush. I found this book inspiring. So much so that I am planning on writing a book about Bush (with facts-haha) that he is really a martian and not from this earth at all. Look for me on 60 minutes, meet the press etc. I'm also reserving my own island from book profits. Only in America!
Rating:
Summary: worth reading
Review: I wanted to see the reviews here at Amazon before posting my own comments, but now I have to comment on some of these posts. It seems that if you are a die-hard supporter of president Bush you may feel conflicted about Mr. Woodward's revelations. On the one hand, he is not another Bush-hater out to attack the president or his disatrous Iraq policy, as so many have in the past few months have. On the other hand, there is information in the book that make our president look out-of-touch, ignorant, arrogant, strange and weird and, yes, even dumb. But, overall, this is not an unsympathetic view of the president. Here you have some Bush admirers who see it as a "fair and balanced" book, an honest book that tells the truth and shows us what a great guy the prez is, EXCEPT for those parts where Mr. Woodward "lies", (i.e. when facts make the president look bad). Apparently, you can conveniently pick and choose the parts where Woodward is the well-respected journalist giving us the truth about the Bush administration, and the parts where he is just a lying liberal distorting the facts and making poor Dubya look bad. But we know that Mr. Woodward is not a liberal, or even a Democrat, and that he has in the past written sympathetically about Mr. Bush. And this is, for the most part, or maybe in comparaison to recent books about the Bush administration, a sympathetic view, which is probably why the White House seems to be promoting it. But for those who read the book carefully and with an open mind, there is plenty here about the Bushies to worry about and it may be why Rush Limbaugh has decided that this is, after all, an anti-Bush book. Limbaugh may have burned some brain cells with those drugs but he is still a smart man and knows that if you learn some facts about Bush and his administration, as presented in this book -- not the biased, distorted propaganda he and others promote -- you are going to worry. Take the fact that the president didn't see it necessary to discuss or share his plans for Iraq with his (earthly) father, president Bush Sr. - someone who had similar experience on the subject and might have given him, hopefully, better advice that the higher source he consulted - that seems totally unbelievable. Also, the fact that a Saudi official was informed about the plans to invade Iraq before our Secretary of State has to give us pause (what EXACTLY is the connection between this administration and the Saudis?). But even more amazing is the revelation that, apparently, it was not the president who made the final decision to go to war, but THE VICE_PRESIDENT! It may explain why Mr. Bush will only testify to the 9-11 commission with Mr. Cheney in the same room. Interestingly, the book also tells us that it was not so much the president, but the vice-president who was feverishly obsessed with Iraq and determined to go after Saddam. So, Mr. Chenney, who didn't see it necessary to serve his country in combat as a young man was more than willing to send young men and women to fight his war in Iraq. Unfortunately, the reason behind this is something Mr. Woodward does not explain. He leaves perhaps the most important question unanswered: Why, really, did these people take us into this, obvioulsly poorly planned, war? Why the rush to get Saddam? No one has yet explained that too convincingly. Overall, this an informative and well-written book, even if it leaves you with some unanswered questions.
Rating:
Summary: More honesty
Review: I could not find anything from the weeding through propaganda in the media. It is only through books such as this, written by those with 'behind the scenes' experience that this knowlege can be obtained. I am quickly engulfing these books, now having gotten my head out of the mud of partison beliefs. Great. Keep them coming.
Rating:
Summary: Quite an insight
Review: As I always suspected , Colin Powell is the only one with any forethought and credibilty in this den of war mongering chickenhawks. It is very humorous how Dick Cheney , who did everything he possibly could to avoid serving and did billions of business with Iraq for Halliburton was so immensely gung ho to send our young sons and daughters to sacrifice their lives for the Bush/Cheney folly in Iraq. A must read
| 
