Have just begun reading the book but from page one it holds abundant previously secret information, well-documented as only a top notch reporter like Bob Woodward can do it!

As with his first 3 books detailing the Bush Administration's conduct of the Long War, Woodward provides an excellent first draft of history. A chronicle put together from extensive interviews with numerous sources, Woodward paints a picture of an Administration at war with itself over the struggle in the Iraq theater. The situation in Iraq begins to get so bad, that elements within and outside the White House begin to piece together a strategy to turn around the war effort, and eventually convince the President to change strategy at the last possible moment. Like in the first three books, this story is so detailed I sometimes think "He HAS to be making this up. No one could know that!"

There's been a lot of sensational angst and hand-wringing over this book,just like the previous ones. The first two books were roundly condemned by the Left as "laudatory" of Bush. The third book, State of Denial, was widely seen as more critical, as was this one. The reality is more complex. All four books show the warts of the Bush Administration and The War Within is no different. Woodward shows us a president who is not deeply involved in the decision-making process and is, some would say, dangerously sure of himself.

But it also shows a president who is resolute and willing to act when the chips are down. Who is willing to swim against the tide, ignore the conventional wisdom and finally do what is necessary to win the battle.

What plays out in the book is that the tragedy of the Bush Administration is that it took *so long*, pushed to brink of defeat, before the president decided to change the strategy. What came out in State of Denial was that the president kind of sees himself as the "cheerleader in chief." That is, he empowers people to do a job, and then back them up to the hilt. But sometimes, you have to be Lincoln. Sometimes you just have to fire generals until you find one that fights.

The Abazaid/Sanchez/Casey strategy was appalling. "Leave to win?" That doesn't even make sense on its face! How do you win a war by ceding the battlefield?

Despite Woodward's generally negative characterization of President Bush, he does give him his due in finally deciding to go around his own generals and military establishment, and tap a select group of people who were flailing their arms and yelling for 2 years - trying to keep the nation from sailing off a cliff. The War Within details the efforts these people also; Meghan O'Sullivan, General Jack Keane, Fred Kagan and Steve Hadley, and their struggles within the security bureaucracy. These people saved the war.

This forth installment by Woodward on Bush's presidency/Iraq war focuses almost entirely on the Bush Administration's about face in dealing with Iraq. Or more importantly, how very little change had occurred except throwing more troops at the fire contrary to what the military advised the president on. I was very disappointed that the entire book focused only on one thing - the troop surge. I really thought that troop surge was greatly overrated in this volume. What I mean is I think Woodward tried to parallel it with the debacle of Johnson's escalation of Vietnam and hedged his bets on public reaction and the effects that the troop surge was going to have on the American public.

I think the bottom line is the war still continues, the surge is over and done with and just viewed as another drop in the bucket for the Bush presidency. I really think Woodward could have covered the entire surge in 2-3 chapters.

What I did like is Woodward's ability to get inside the administration and write about the behind the scenes and the interactions that go on. This book sheds light that Bush really makes the ultimate decision but like a poker player - bets on one hand. Bush never really engulfed himself in the situation but had others do the leg work for him. Hadley is the real engine turning the opinion and forcing the administration into alignment (whereas Rummy was the bad guy in the the previous book).

This was the least interesting book (of the 4 Woodward has written) with little to no revelation in it. Everyone knew the war was being lost but Bush would not admit it. Well, the war continues, no one hears of Petraeus anymore and the surge is forgotten - this is how memorable I chalked this volume to be.

Bob Woodward has provided another candid, incisive, and informative window into the personalities, key players, and power brokers who have helped shape and implement the Bush administration's policy in Iraq. He provides detailed accounts of candid, sometimes back room discussions among the key figures who have shaped American military policy in Iraq in the waning years of the Bush administration. This includes figures such as Bush's key advisor Stephen Hadley, Peter Pace, Stephen Petraeus as well as the obvious Bush officials Condi Rice and Dick Cheney.

Woodward's portrait is well-balanced and highlights both shortcomings, such as internal debates about Iraq policy (or lack thereof) among his senior aides; to the apparent success of measures like "the surge" and "Anbar Awakening." He then turns to providing some developing impressions about Bush's possible legacy, as well as what the next president (at the time of publication it was down to McCain and Obama), and what he will inherit.

Woodward, who has authored countless acclaimed books on presidential politics, including three previous books in the "Bush at War" series, was granted unprecedented access. He also provides clear, cogent analysis of the key players and factions in Iraq- from the dubious initial role of Chalabi, to the missteps of Bremer's transitional government, to the election of Maliki as the president of Iraq. He also interestingly observes how, among the three main factions in Iraq (Sunni, Shia and Kurds), the Shia, in addition to being the most numerous, also control the lion share of the vast, rich, oil fields of southern Iraq.

Overall an excellent book by an acclaimed, award-winning author and reporter, who as many may remember, broke the Watergate story way back when along with Bernstein.

My one critique of this book is that, while the access and detailed reporting are outstanding, I was hoping for more analysis and narrative commentary from Woodward. Then again- that is not really his "shtick." If you like Woodward's other books and his columns you will love this book, but be mindful that he leaves the reader to connect a lot of the dots and draw their own conclusions from his detailed accounts of this arguably dubious era in presidential history.

Highly recommended!

CentCom commander Adm. Fox Fallon described the situation best. He told the NSC that the Administration was to blame. He said that they got the country into the mess, went to war without a plan, screwed up how to run it and now take no responsibility.

In this the fourth book of the Bush White House, Woodward shows the logical conclusion of anti-intellectual, anti-strategic foreign policy. The war based on George Bush's "gut feeling" of how to handle a complex world with known unknowns and then managed, or not managed, from the top down with a system of "pass the buck" could only end in abject failure. Rumsfeld attempted to guide the war through unsigned memos called snowflakes in order to have deniability. Bush and Cheney used a retired general as a back channel to the field commanders to evade the chain of command. Strategic decisions were never made. Tactical decisions were passed on to committee meetings. No one wanted to get blamed for the disaster so no one wanted to make a decision.

The Administration treated the Iraqi government apparatus as Peter the Great treated his. They tried to give it latitude to act on its own. But, once the Iraqis didn't do what the Administration wanted, they would step in to change it. On the other hand, when generals and ambassadors tried to get Maliki to do something he would decline saying he had the confidence of the President, who would then confirm that.

Alas, Obama and his new foreign policy team will find a failed state in the Middle East that by virtue of the failure of leadership and lack of intellectual rigor it owns. There are many who want to move forward and are trying to make this disastrous policy work; but a policy built on the sands of ignorance, the hubris of the Project for a New American Century and the gut instincts of an anti-intellectualist commander-in-chief is doomed to fail. Thanks, George.

By Cameron Castle:

I just finished "The War Within: A Secret Whitehouse History 2006 to 2008." by Bob Woodward. It should have been titled, "Letting The Fox In The Henhouse." Woodward's first two surprisingly positive books about President Bush allowed him unbelievable access to the inner workings of the Bush White house. It was both fascinating and tedious at the same time. The point of story is the accurate retelling with regards to the ongoing war in Iraq, of the continual disagreement, secrecy, churning and manipulating of facts, and the unbearable snails pace toward making a decision. The delays in implementing any change in strategy, delays caused by worries of political fall-out, happened during a time when our U.S casualties in Iraq were rising. Reading it was like watching the movie "Groundhogs Day," only without the jokes.

Many disturbing revelations come out in the book. One particularly painful one was in describing the lack of communication between parts of the administration. Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, one of only a few people with military experience in the administration, was not briefed on the war plans before the invasion. A copy had to be smuggled out of the Pentagon by someone under Secretary Rice, and given to him in secrecy, on the promise he would not reveal he had seen it.

The book opens up the discussion on so many topics, which before these revelations were speculations on speculations. Now they can be discussed more coherently. One that leaped off of page 357 and slapped me across the face was the childish mindset the President always had of wanting things both ways.

There was a point when the surge of troops in Iraq, that happened unforgivingly years too late, was starting to work. But a majority of the American public and the majority of those in Congress, including Republicans, were clamoring for the withdrawal of the troops. The situation of asking our troops to take more risks, while they are hearing the mission might be halted, put them in a more dangerous situation.

The situation was, that if the American people knew the facts they would potentially support the President, this time. But why would the public believe anything coming out of the White House enough to change their views when it had been years and years of secrecy, distortion, or just plain, flat out lies? There is example after example of detailed recounting of meetings in the White House, meetings that moments after they concluded a participant stepped in front of the microphone and told the exact opposite of what had transpired.

The President was so frustrated that he couldn't, every once and awhile, step up to the podium and say. "Hey, this time I am telling you the truth. Trust me on this one." and have the people buy it. He just did not get it. I try usually to not be directly insulting to George Bush, but after absorbing hundreds of pages of detailed accounts of the actual conversations that took place at the White House, the best analogy seems to be that our country has been run by a spoiled fifth-grader. One with absolutely no figure of authority to put him in his place.

Why I am so deeply furious that he was allowed to continue to rule our country in that fashion, unchecked for so long, is not only because of the endless list of hurtful decisions he made with regards to the environment, the economy, and society as a whole, but that the result of his style of leading, using misinformation as a tool, resulted in dead people. Lots and lots of dead people.

This book is excellent. I think most people will enjoy this book no matter what your point of view is. The book is written really well, just as most of Woodward's books are. He makes you feel as you read it you are in the room with the principles watching events transpire.

The book serves two functions. The first thing the reader sees in the book is how policy evolves in Washington D.C. Rarely is it the decision of one person. This book shows that. Groups of people working in different agencies and Congress seems to come together from different angles. Of course events push these groups to come up with options. This book shows how that comes about better than anything else.

The second function is you see how things in Iraq policy work. A reader will see clearly how the mess in Iraq comes about. The over reliance on politics has clearly effected policy. The book shows that very clearly.
Through the story in the book you can see indirectly how Bush operates. I know everyone will have different opinions on that.

Woodward's hatred of George W. goes beyound the normal, but I'm sure that is for book sales alone. He writes as if someone put him up to making all these accusations, but no facts to back them up.
Why waste your money, read the New York Times on a daily basis, it gives you just as much contrived information as this book!

On the whole the book provided a great deal of insight into the why and the how of this disasterous and unnecessary war.Of most importance was insight on how to prevent this from happening in the future.(hopefully!)It depicted the recklessness and cluelessness of those in power and how it will impact upon us for generations to come.

This book was a gift to my husband and he is devouring it. Must be good.

Sometimes you read a book that shocks you, makes you ashamed at how little you knew about something important in the world around you. This book had that effect on me. It's too bad that more Americans won't have read this by the time they vote in November.

I don't think it will change anyone from one party to another. Some Republicans have reviewed this on Amazon saying "read this if you like to read lies". I don't find this book particularly anti-war, nor do I find it particularly pro-war. It sometimes portrays the Republicans as a little foolish, and it sometimes portrays the Democrats as a little naive, but both of those criticisms are often true of the parties.

This book won't tell you anything about why the war was started. It's not a conspiracy theory book. It's only interested in what steps have been taken to make the war a success in the last three or four years.

On that note, this book made a lot of things more clear to me: Whenever someone says "we must succeed" in a speech, I used to think they were just blowing rhetoric around, but the Iraq War, whether it's won or lost, is going to have a huge impact on average Americans and how they relate to the rest of the world. It's also going to make a huge impact on how the rest of the world views us. We invaded a country, yes. Did we fix it before we left? Or did we break it and run?

Marketing claims are easy to make but execution is much more valuable and difficult to accomplish. Amazon makes it easy and they DELIVER!!!!! They had what I needed, billed me as promised and delivered the book faster than I would have expected. I expect a lot when it comes to customer service and I criticize more often than not. This is all praise, earned by a concientious organization.

`The War Within' by Bob Woodward

In the 4th of the Bush at War quartet, Bob Woodward's `The War Within' offers the most scathing portrait of the George W. Bush administration's prosecution of the Iraq War. As a person who badly wants to see a successful conclusion in Iraq (whatever that may be, at this point) the reporting in this book was, at times, difficult to digest. Moreover, it's alarming to realize just how disorganized and inept the White House appeared (and appears) at key junctures during the defining crisis in this nations foreign policy.

While the selection and elevation of General David Petraeus to MNFI was a tremendous success, and has rightly received the praise it deserves, Woodward examines the decisions of General George Casey's time in that same role. The lack of clear dialogue between he and the JCS, State & White House seem frightening at times and demonstrate the haphazard nature of policy making. I found the reporting on the Colonel's Committee particularly interesting: a group of highly respected colonels assembled for the sole purpose of examining our situation in Iraq and trying to establish, I suppose, a "clearer way forward". The valuable work this group put forth, and in the end, seeming disregard for their effort was jolting to anyone thinking the administration was listening to all smart military & policy minds.

Many on the right and left have had their particular gripes with Woodward over the years; I never had. I consider his reportage smart and incisive, peerless and timely. I've never been one to believe that his writing is tendentious or overtly biased. `The War Within', in my opinion, is no different. Mr. Woodward keeps his reporting between the chapters and waits to offer his own opinions in the epilogue; some I disagree with, others I do not. Regardless, I consider his writing superb and am happy that he's made this solid contribution to American journalism.

`The War Within' is a must read, in addition to the preceding 3 books in Bob Woodward's Bush at War quartet.

Woodward's book should be read in conjunction with Gellman's "Angler" to get a fuller picture of the political dynamics that led the US down the garden path to catastrophe from 2001-2008. Woodward could have used a good editor to squeeze down the excessively detailed and repetitive narrative, but its very repetition underscores how completely clueless the Bush principals were in realizing they were headed down the wrong road, driving the country (and Iraq) ever deeper into a quagmire. It boggles the mind that such bright and hard working people took so long to understand and accept what was so obvious to a majority of Americans: that our policies in Iraq were wrongheaded and failing, and to find an alternative. The jury is still out on whether the US can or will ever "succeed" in Iraq, however one choses to define that. But the verdict is already in on Bush/Cheney, charged with impetuosity, poor planning, ideologically driven decisions, secrecy, hidden agendas, and stuborn refusal to recognize failure and adjust course: guilt as charged.

Woodard is a believable writer. In-depth reports of Iraqi war within U.S. government raises great concern of our leaders emotional and professional leadership abilities. Who is making our presidential decisions? Who has the ear of the president? Where are the safe guards within our government to correct direction of our country by our president...before our government is off on a trillion dollar failing tangent!

Much like Oliver Stone's "W.", The War Within disappoints but for slightly different reasons. "W." is a vacuous narrative because the lead character is an uninteresting thug, while The War Within is vacuous because there is no apparent motive for the invasion and occupation of Iraq in the first place. No core goal to excite the read.

Mr. Woodward mentions the word "oil" somewhere around page 400, so there is no clear objective for the war, which makes the book lifeless and all the king's men (and woman) appear fools. Also, most of what Woodward recounts is well known to the attentive citizen through contemporaneous media reports and books. So it reinforces the administration's transparency.

On the up side, The War Within completes Woodward's responsible documentation of public incompetency in the highest places throughout this most failed Presidency in U.S. history.

Bob Philbin

Woodward takes 425 pages to chronicle the bizarre goings-on and factional disagreements in the Bush Administration, and especially within the White House, over the conduct of the Iraq War during the 2006 to mid-2008 period when the violence in the country was at its peak. The president's determination to bring the war to a successful conclusion makes him unable to accept reports that the escalation of violence may cause his plan to fail. Even his generals are reluctant to be candid with him. The latter portion of the book deals with the disagreement between Bush and the Pentagon on whether to institute the troop surge: Bush and some of his civilian advisers support the concept, but the Pentagon and military leaders tend to oppose it.

Woodward uses both direct quotations in the story and a list of sources at the back which add to its authenticity. Only in the Epilogue does he editorialize and offer analysis. By then the reader will probably have drawn his or her own conclusion.

This was a very insightfull book on the Iraq war. Every one should read it.

A pretty compelling read

Thankfully the book comes with a glossary, and also an index

A very readable and understandable book. Woodward just tells you whats so. Theres little comment on his part, and with quotes from Bush, Rice, Cheney..

Basically, this is the inside story of the Bush war and how it was eventually pulled together to make Iraq a success (albeit a fragile one)

I have not read the earlier 3 volumes as yet. This particular volume covers from the first Iraqi elections up to the present day.

What comes across painfully is that during the elections of 2006 a great amount of Iraqi business was not done above board, so as not to hurt the elections for the House and Senate. This is disturbing, particularly because at that time (November 2006) Iraq was in a terrible state and someone should have really gotten on it. The matter should probably not have just been swept aside to Bush's security advisor (Hadley)

Thankfully the story DOES have a happy ending (of sorts). Policy is changed in Iraq (Bush expresses later that there were too few troops in Iraq at the beginning to take it - hence the surge)

Noone comes up smelling of roses. The prime minister of Iraq has his own interests as a Shia, and Bush grooms him to take control of his country

Bush is noted as someone who chooses from his gut, which might not be the best way to win a war, particularly a preemptive conflict.

Its a compelling read. The story is told very well for its 400 pages, and you find yourself understanding Iraq a bit better, even if you feel that the conflict was needless and has only gotten innocent Americans and Iraqis killed

[...]
Very interesting and informative look at what was and is going on behind the scenes at the Bush White House during the invasion of Iraq.

An excellent sequel to his earlier work, "A State of Denial". As an Iraqi myself, I can only wonder at the kindergarten level of Bush's actions and intellgience

I have just a few dozen pages left to finish it, but I already decided the book is very informative, insightful, and worth reading. I only gave it 3 stars because it gets repetitive, but then again, it gets repetitive because history repeats itself...

Bob Woodward is a popular writer, and thus writes to a wide audience. This is his forte, and he writes well within this category of current events. Yet, there is no profound analysis, no depth into the stupidity of this mismanaged war in Iraq.

Only diehard Republicans would think the Bush administration is gifted in the war. And even many of them have had second thoughts. So, Woodward's book does not appear to provide startling details about the administration.

For anti-Bush people, this book is yet another nail in the coffin against Rumsfeld and Bush. In that regard, the book serves a just purpose. But, I doubt it will change minds already made up.

The critical point of the Iraq War is that Americans are still hyptonized by the Patton Syndrome, the implacable illusion that Americans think that defeat is hateful to their very soul. As a result of lingering in Iraq and Afganistan, the US cannot confront Russia in Georgia, except by impotent words, which are essentially ignored by all who are not Americans.

The US can fight two theatres of war for victory simultaneously. Any other conflict would have to be fought for a time delay or a stalemate. This has been US military policy since the end of WWII. The Patton illusion becomes catastrophic when a third theatre starts up, whether in Iran, or North Korea, or Georgia, or Ukraine (Crimea). This is the profound tragedy today in US policy.

What I find most challenging about a Woodward book is how to comprehend how he obtains all the first hand quotes of what people have said to each other outside of his interviews. One would have to conclude that the individuals interviewed must feel a trusted need at full disclosure; however, it still is difficult to comprehend how Woodward can actually capture all the dialogue in his books. Nevertheless, the book comes across as a personal inside view of the inner workings of the White House and the Pentagon where the President relies on gut instincts yet is somewhat detached with what is really happening in Iraq relying immensely on strong aids like Hadley to pull the finite information together. The disarray and lack of consensus is most fascinating as the Joints Chiefs appear to be not only non-supportive of staffing the Iraq war but are superseded by a collection of highly experienced Colonels that meet periodically with General Pace as an independent think tank and retired Generals like Keane are consulted who provide a healthy direction. such as backing General Petreaus, that comes in conflict with the Joint Chiefs fully symbolized by the new Joints Chief of staff who tries to remove Keane from any further involvement in spite of the success of the surge You will also have a first hand account of the determinations of the Iraqi study group, the doubts of Rice, the post invasion failure and doubts of Rumsfeld and the immense challenges of General Petreaus who is virtually isolated by the top brass in Iraq including his immediate commander Fallon. Woodward has unusual access to Bush that is not always complimentary but it's as if Bush is willing to expose himself to Woodward to attempt to show his version of his legacy on Iraq. The inside scope seems to be the troops and officers closest to the ground such as Petreaus, Keane and the league of colonels have the practical view of the conflict and what should work. The sadness is that it took so long, 2006 to arrive at that conclusion.

There is one reason and one reason only to read anything by Bob Woodward. One doesn't read Woodward for the journalism and his works are only of limited utility to any good historian.

This isn't because he misquotes his interviewees, but rather because he reports what they say to the exclusion of any other point of view. If you aren't willing to talk to him, Woodward writes you out of the script no matter how important you are.

For instance, Douglas Feith's latest book has a totally different version of the surge, but he didn't talk to Woodward. So Feith, an important player in the Bush White House, doesn't even get mentioned in the book. Is Feith right or wrong? You have no idea from reading this book. All you get is the self justification of a lot of players who lost a policy battle and therefore had a lot of time to complain to Mr. Woodward. Woodward doesn't even bother to ask his subjects to refute Feith, probably because he is ignorant of Feith's viewpoint himself.

No, the only reason to read Woodward is because he is the perfect snapshot of the media bubble, conventional wisdom, the zeitgeist, call it what you will. There is not an independent thought in his head. He is incapable of thinking for himself, which makes him the perfect mirror for what the American liberal elite thinks.

As everyone knows, the four books in Woodward's oeuvre dealing with Bush as a military leader vary wildly from the near hagiographic first volume to this damning final volume. But it was the same Bush using the same thought processes making similar decisions. The only difference is the way the country's elite - its media, politicians and bankers - saw Bush. There is a direct correlation between Bush's poll numbers and Woodward's treatment of Bush in each of his works.

On the one hand, this makes his books useless as history and a waste of time as journalism. You can learn everything there is to know in this book by nursing a drink in a bar on K Street and keeping your ears open.
On the other hand, the value is in what The War Within tells you of how the decision makers of the country view the world. And that is very frightening.

Woodward claims in the book that the surge had nothing to do with the huge turnaround in the fate of Iraq. When pressed in interviews for this book, he admits that it was a significant element in the turnaround, but argues that "process" is more important than the outcome of a decision, a process which Bush failed to follow when he overrode the Washington Establishment and turned to a retired general and a neo-conservative intellectual for advice.

Since the Washington Establishment was unanimous in arguing that the cause was lost and we should start heading for the exits, Woodward obviously values the maintenance of the egos of the Washington elite over success in the making of any decision.

This is disturbing because many losing causes were saved when a President looked elsewhere for his advice when the insiders failed him. For one thing, there would now be a United States and a Confederate States of America, with Lincoln having gracefully acceded to General McClellan's panic and incompetence. The one heroic decision of the Bush Administration in the last four years is turned into an object lesson of what not to do rather than an act to emulate.

The American elite has reached the same stage, then, as the French kings did when Tallyrand said of them that "they forget nothing and they learn nothing." We have succeeded in producing the stupidest smart people in the world. After this election, we will almost certainly have the country's decision makers coming exclusively from the media/academic/political bubble of ignorance and Woodward tells us what we can expect.

Be very afraid.

This brand-new, hardcover book came very quickly in excellent shape. It's more interesting, livelier, and a faster read than previous books by Bob Woodward.

It amazes me that a reporter would get an 8 year behind the scenes pass to the Bush administration, but Woodward did. No one has ever successfully challenged the quotations in his books which are absolutely stunning. "The War Within" shows a President disengaged from his own war, "outsourcing" it to National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, who apparently idolizes Bush. And retired General Jack Keane is disgraceful: he served as a back door for his protege' General Petraeus direct to the Vice President, bypassing the Pentagon.

It is a good review of the period 2006-2008 in the White House regarding the Iraq conflict. The author shows his bias however in his judgement of President Bush for not be decisive enough especially in the early periods of the war. I would recommend it for the depth of conflict it reveals within the high level administration circles.A very good book.

I've read all the previous Woodward books - have to wonder how author maintains his access for the interviews. Mostly, this book validates information from other authors; particularly those who were on-scene participants in Iraq or imbeds on missions. A total disconnect from
policy makers and boots on the ground. Years from now, when history
is evaluated, this book will be a primary source.

This book contains old news .
However,the material was and is very timly and insightful.
A fast and must read !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you

Our decision to go to war with Iraq needs to be understood by all of us. This book sheds much light on how we got into and managed the effort.

This is a beautifully written book from one of America's great heros, and the quality of construction is seldom seen in books today. In addition to being fascinating reading, it is delightful to the eye and touch.

Woodward's book is like a verbal documentary illustrating how really poor judgment and leadership led us to Iraq. Having served in Iraq in 2005, I can say without any reservation that corruption, fraud and waste was normal.

American troopers have paid a high price..a very high price for Bush and his people's intend to change the Middle East via Iraq into something Washington can control.

It is and was about oil..make no mistake. And lastly, what are the American people going to gain from the Iraq War..absolutely nothing!

Lieutenant Colonel, US Army
Balad/Anaconda-2005

Mr.Woodward takes us through a very painful journey of war during the last two years. From his accounts it is very apparent that there were no easy answers to the problems US was facing in IRAQ. Al Queda, Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahidi Army & Sunny insurgents were all fighting coalition forces while the later two were fighting against each other in a sectarian struggle. A really messed up place. In the middle of all this, the President has to fight his own generals (Cassey & Abiziad) who were doing the same things but expect different results. I am no Bush fan. I disagree with him on many issues. But in this war Bush's struggles reminds me of President Lincoln's who had to go through a lot of pain finally to find Ulysses Grant. For Bush it is Gen. Petreaus.

A great read for those of us 'inside the Beltway'; however, for those not familiar with all the players, can be a little hard to follow. Great insights and really clarifies, in a negative context, the Rumsfeld role.

Overall an excellent, well written book, easy to read and understand. But, having said that, in my opinion each chapter should have started with the year that the events took place. Because of the duration of the Iraq War it was difficult for me to keep track of the timing of the events as they unfolded. Other than that my original evaluation stands as excellent and a good insight into the Bush administration's underestimation of the complexity of the invasion and it's impact on the Middle East at large, and also the damage to America's image throughout the world.

I was a college student in the mid-1970s, and Bob Woodward was my inspiration for becoming a journalist. He is all that is admirable in this profession, and I am so grateful for his dedication to painstaking fact-gathering and cogent writing and analysis.

I found this book the most gripping in his Bush Administration series. A must-read for every American who cares about truth.

And when you want some neurobiological explanations for the behaviors that Woodward so accurately details--instead of just scratching your head and puzzling over WHY WHY WHY -- consider reading Bush on the Couch Rev Ed: Inside the Mind of the President by Dr. Justin Frank.

Gina Pera, author
Is It You, Me, or Adult A.D.D.? Stopping the Roller Coaster When Someone You Love Has Attention Deficit Disorder

Bob Woodward is incredible, in that he somehow is able to get the key players in one of the worst political disasters since Watergate to open up to him, and lay their faults out there for all to see.

The actions of the Bush administration are so hard to fathom , that were it not for Mr. Woodward's first person account, we would not believe it was possible, in this day and age.

Woodward's style, as shown in his previous works, makes this book a page turner, with all the details to put the reader right there, and able to appreciate all the nuances that went into the decision making processes of the war obsessed Bush administration, warts and all.

Don't be mistaken, this is not a novella, nor is it a history book. It is an unabashed detailed account of the running of a war that will go down in history as the worst foreign policy effort our nation has ever attempted.

I was a college student in the mid-1970s, and Bob Woodward was my inspiration for becoming a journalist. He is all that is admirable in this profession, and I am so grateful for his dedication to painstaking fact-gathering and cogent writing and analysis.

I found this book the most gripping in his Bush Administration series. A must-read for every American who cares about truth.

Gina Pera, author
Is It You, Me, or Adult A.D.D.? Stopping the Roller Coaster When Someone You Love Has Attention Deficit Disorder

When I read a new book by Bob Woodward, two questions normally come to my mind: (1) Why in the world would people let him interview them on the record or on background, knowing that he will report their statements in some publication? (2) Once these statements end up in print, why do so few attack him as distorting what they said or of making up quotations? Each question is fascinating in itself. And the answers may well tie together. If one wants his or her views on the record, it will happen with Woodward. And my sense is that he is normally very accurate (why else would there be so few complaints, relatively speaking?). Anyhow, here we go again--"The War Within."

This is a book about the Bush Administration's change of policy with respect to Iraq. It begins before the elections of 2006, when things were falling apart in Iraq. Even stalwart Republican Senators began to question the war and the Administration's policy regarding it. Even while the President was telling the country that progress was being made, several evaluations of policy were occurring simultaneously (and not always informing one another): the military evaluation, centered on a platoon of colonels assessing matters; Stephen Hadley's examination (he was National Security Advisor); the Iraq Study Group, led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton; a group headed by Meghan O'Sullivan. One thing that is clear from all the groups' examination of the status of the Iraq war--things were not working. Generals and Administration figures were speaking positively of the war, and these various groups were telling a far different story. In fact, the President, saying one thing in public, had come to embrace the perspective of Hadley and others. Things began to happen--Donald Rumsfeld was replaced by Robert Gates at Defense; the concept of the "surge" began to gain some degree of support.

Some of the high points: discussions of the President's own thinking (based on interviews with Woodward), inside accounts of meetings among military leaders and war critics, within the Iraq Study Group, and so on. At the end of the book, Woodward notes how this book builds on his third in a series on the Bush presidency, "State of Denial." He notes how, in that work, how the President was not openly acknowledging problems in Iraq and the deterioration of conditions on the ground. As Woodward said in the final passages in that book (Page 433 in "The War Within"): "With all Bush's upbeat talk and optimism. . .he had not told the American public the truth about what Iraq had become." He goes on to say "My reporting for this book showed that to be even more the case than I could have imagined."

His final evaluation (Page 437): "There was no deadline, no hurry [in the President's leadership on Iraq]. The president was engaged in the war rhetorically but maintained an odd detachment from its management. He never got a handle on it, and over these years of war, too often he failed to lead." Fairly bracing language from Woodward. Does he make the case? I think that that judgment should be left to each reader. Whatever one might think of Woodward and the president, this book does spark thinking about the subject.

I have read all four books in this series and many others about Bush and the Iraq war that have been published over the last few years. This is one of the best. It is beyond belief how screwed up this administration is. No one has a clue about how to win in Iraq. Bush allows no debate on the war, and clearly misunderstands the mess he is in. If you disgree with Bush, you are out the door. Bush has a sinister, almost creepy interest in body counts. The only conclusion one can reach about our president is that he is a megalomaniac.

Bob Woodward's unrivaled access to the Bush White House, and to the President, together with his careful recall of dates and interviews, gives the reader a full and complete insight into this last chapter of the Bush presidency. And, for the first time, the author pulls the curtain aside of his reporting to reveal his judgment. And what is revealed is not flattering. Woodward writes that this is a president who is driven by his "gut", "God" and a "vision" that starts out as "victory" but over the course of the years is watered down to a "win", and finally merely to "succeed". Bush finds it easier to concentrate on "body count" rather than strategy. Woodward shows the President as perhaps the least Socratic man to hold the office although not the first president to surround himself with those who feed his ego. In that context the President appears to permit Stephen Hadley to run the war while Condoleezza Rice engages in flattery. Woodward points out that the President did not feel able to "level" with the nation and reverted to politics as usual when the war was spinning out of control before the mid-term election. The White House relied more on a retired general, General Jack Keane, who appears to have had more influence than the Joint Chiefs of Staff on promotions and policies, and, thanks to the Vice President, is permitted back-door access to the White House which undermined the morale and advice of those senior officers active in the Armed Forces. It is a book that reveals a president cocooned and protected by a small coterie of admirers. Readers and history will thank Woodward for this book, which is his fourth and best of this presidency. It paints a clear picture of a president who disregards views other than those that he wants to hear; the only people who speak truth to power in this book make a quick exit or are ignored. In the years to come, historians will find this an essential text even if it does reveal "the nation's most divisive figure".

While impeccably written, it certainly contains a wide array of easily disproved conspiracy theories to satisfy the crazed left. Woodward is starting to venture off into la la land with this book. I'm not surprised, since the goal is to sell books. Been a few days since I read it, and I'm still chuckling about a few of the points.

After finishing this important and timely book this morning at 5:30am, I sit here at my IMac and wonder to myself, "How did the country get here?" Yesterday, the stock market fell almost 7%. Some of the other mindblowing issues of the day: the war in Iraq and Afghanistan seems unending, Iran is getting stronger and stronger, there is the unsettling question of exactly who is in charge in North Korea, etc etc.

Man, the country is in rough shape.

And I, for one, put an enormous amount of blame on President Bush and all his sycophantic advisors and appointees. Never has a man so self confident had such a terrible track record.

His legacy will include enormous deficit spending, tax cuts for the wealthy in a time of war, 9/11 occurring on his watch, No Child Left Behind (in my view a completely failed policy that will hurt the nation's educational system, and children, for decades), a military stretched thin by the failed war in Iraq. On and on it goes. Has the President done anything RIGHT in his eight years in office?

Not that I can see.

....

Reading this book made me very very angry.

Angry that the President is always so sure of himself. People who cannot admit mistakes and errors are very dangerous. For the entire length of the five years old invasion and occupation of Iraq, President Bush has never been able to tell the American people the truth about how poorly things were, and are, going.

Angry that our nation's military, far and away the best equipped, best manned, and best led in the world, was put into an impossible situation: occupying a nation of 25 million people that is riven with ethnic and religious strife, and most likely ALWAYS WILL BE. The Shia, the Sunni, and the Kurds simply HATE EACH OTHER, for a variety of reasons. They kill each other off left and right, and what are we to do about it?

Angry that the nation I love so much has gotten in way over its head. We need to withdraw from Iraq responsibly, leave a military presence there but one that does not get involved in the day to day running of the nation, and let the Iraqi people figure things out for themselves.

.....

The book itself has been described as a great "first draft of history." With that assessment, I agree. But Woodward is maddingly inconclusive in his non-judgment of the Bush White House. Reading "The War Within" is like reading a reporter's story of a car crash the day after it occurred, "Driver A ran into Driver B at the intersection of Main Street and Turnpike Road."

We have a need to know that, but please, Mr. Woodward, tell us what you think! It is only in the Epilogue that the country's most famous reporter describes his dissatisfaction with how President Bush has conducted himself. Some reviewers feel that Woodward took his best shots the POTUS only after he no longer needed access. That may be true.

.....

I would highly recommend this book to every American interested in how our nation is run and how decisions are made in the White House. But please continue reading the other books written on the subject.

Unless this is your introduction to Bob Woodward's four books about how we got into Iraq and why it didn't turn out so well, you won't be surprised to learn that President George W. Bush knows of no price too high for the United States to pay in order to make him look good in his decision to invade Iraq in 2003. His approach to improving matters in Iraq is to wait for someone to propose spending more money and more lives, and then jump on the suggestion. Meanwhile, he and his true believers revel in the thought he will be ultimately considered as being another Abraham Lincoln for bringing democracy to the Middle East. That's the long and short of this book.

Most of the over 400 pages dwell on good-faith attempts to find ways to respond to the rising numbers of attacks by insurgents that began in 2004. The military felt that only by withdrawing could they reduce the temptation to attack.

Of course, the president didn't pay any attention to those except if they agreed with his determination to increase troop strength once again. If his people weren't getting the message, outside conservative political operatives would be brought in to prepare a new direction. You'll also learn how President Bush enjoys tutoring Prime Minister Maliki on how to create political consensus (talk about the blind leading the blind).

How did the surge turn out? So far, violence is down in Iraq. But apparently a lot of the credit goes to a change in leadership (General Petraeus) to bring more counterinsurgency techniques and a secret effort to assassinate the leaders of the insurgency. Also, al Qaeda was too violent for even the Iraqis and Sunnis began to sign up to fight them. In addition, we began to put the people who used to be in the Iraqi army back on our payroll. These methods could have been brought in during 2004.

We get a picture of a president aware that things are going downhill but totally deferential to what his military leaders on the ground propose while hinting that he would like to send them more troops . . . for years on end without looking for any ways to improve. This isn't a commander in chief . . . this is a part-time chairman of the board who happens to live in the White House.

The book is more eloquent for what it doesn't talk about, as President Bush presides over the destruction of the American economy by allowing even more looting through financial malfeasance than he permitted those contractors who were supposed to "rebuild" Iraq. Herbert Hoover starts to look better and better: At least he didn't preside over destroying the economy and a disastrous war through his bungling.

I do hope that Bob Woodward will expand his focus in future books to show the full range of the inattentiveness, incompetence, and arrogance of President George W. Bush . . . not just his mess in Iraq. Please pray for our president! He needs forgiveness.

Why did I grade the book at three stars? This book could have been summarized and made more interesting in about 150 pages. This book contains less relevant information than the others but he still wrote a long book.

Any close observer of Washington knows its unique combination of incentious insularity within closed circles of influence, combined with totally ruthless and immoral in-fighting among distinct close circles. I did not need to read this book to have that confirmed, and ended up wading through it simply to dot the i's and cross the t's on the most terrible eight years of political misjudgements and high crimes in my lifetime.

Here are the highlights from my notes:

Bush: Bush fully engaged, naïve, focused on body count; labeled Iranians and Syrians as "assholes" who could not be dealt with; knew the Iraq strategy was not working for 7 months before internal questions; for three years, did not trust or inform public.

Cheney: Invisible in this book; realizes he is the "Darth Vader" of his generation

Diplomacy: White House refused military request for diplomacy with Iran & Syria--from the first, the US Army both knew the proper number of soliders it needed *and* knew that we needed all elements of the US government but the Department of State specifically, to do their job. Did not happen.

Good News: US is activiely and positively viewed by indigenous belligerents as only one able to break status quo

Influentials worthy of note: DIA senior all-source analyst Derek Harvey; PhD Meghan O'Sullivan White House truth-teller; General David Petraeus reversed the enclaves and pushed out into population; General Jack Keane, retired, back channel for White House and Patraeus.

Intelligence: Local contacts known to WH contradicted CIA, State, and Military "happy talk"; Sharon: generals lie to themselves and they lie to t heir politicians

Iraq $16 billion in scrap metal, no $75M needed to harvest that wealth; we failed to arm or provision them properly;

Process: Too many closed doors, too many secret exchanges; military kept telling White House it needed Whole of Government, no one listened; general failure of White House, State, and Defense to communicate & coordinate; complete lack of Whole of Government planning or execution; fascinating insights into the impotence, indecision, & ignorance of Joint Chiefs of Staff; White House internal review did NOT include military or intelligence participants; General Patraeus did not have support of chain of command or State BUT he did have back channel support from President Bush via General Keane

Rice: Damned for mediocrity as National Security Advisor, NSC badly managed; lied on television about Iraq policy review

Quote, page 433: "For years, time and again, President Bush has displayed impatience, bravado and unsettling personal certainty about his decisions. The result has too often been impulsiveness and carelessness and, perhaps most troubling, a delayed reaction to realities and advice that run counter to his gut."

I must end this with the fair and balanced comment that nothing Bush or Cheney did would have mattered had the rest of the government been honest and/or intelligent.

For an annotated bibliography with hot links to over 500 books and my full reviews, sorted by betrayal of the public trust, capitalism run amok, democracy in decline, and other relevant topics, see the comment and the images above for the URL. If you prefer not to seek that reference out, here are ten books that I view as "capstone" commentaries on the Bush-Cheney regime:

The Bush Tragedy
Bush's Brain
Vice: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency
Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders Into Insiders
Running on Empty: How the Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It
9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA, Fourth Edition
A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies
American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America
Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction
The Republican War on Science

I like to listen to books read to me. Why are you offering only an abridged version of this book? Abridged versions are an abomination! Why participate in an abomination?

Just like other books my Mr. Woodward this book carries the same style in which he makes you a participant in the events and conversations that took place in whitehouse. It was as if you witnessed it and written in non biased way presents the President in much better light as a thinking individual compared to the popular image in media, but also highlights critical error in judgement and odd detachment and resignation from the events. Very consistent with the potrait of president who is known to be driven by ideology with little evidence of self doubt.

In all very lucid style and great job done in introducing important characters who played role in washington, who we don't see on TV.

Over the last 5 years i've read over 200 books on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Special Forces, military theory and history, written by journalists, coronels and generals, left theorists, academics etc. translated from Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, Russian or written in English.
****This is one of the best****The access is unbelievable. Could you imagine 400 pages of inside debate by Bin Laden, Maliki, the Taliban, or Khamenie.
Here we get Bush's white house and the Pentagon
If you want to understand the way the world works..this is a great addition

Bob Woodward once again provides excellent journalism covering the Bush administration. As mentioned in the New York Times review of the book, it is not as compelling as his last couple and anyone who reads newspapers will not find much new information.

Where Woodward deserves credit, though, is in bringing the story together and telling it from an insider's perspective. He brings those desperate pieces of information together into one book backed by solid journalism. Most compelling are the admissions from the administration that the "Sunni Awakening" is based on paying former insurgents to stop killing us and start killing al Qaeda, and also the admission that al Qaeda represented a small part of what fueled the insurgency for years.

This would be valuable information for conservatives who think that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 or that we have been fighting "evil doers" and "terrorists" for the last five or six years. Too bad people like Sarah Palin choose not to read books.