Great book defining the President's decision to go to war, and the inept stooges running our country.

Well, this is a classic example of why histories should not be written within a few short months of the event. Woodward fawns over President Bush, accepting without question that Bush had nothing to do with orchestrating the grand deception of the American public that led to war. His questions of the president, during and after, are softballs that are infuriating to read as the Bush innocently claims he thought he was just getting the finest intelligence that ever was, and blaming everything on George Tenet for his alleged "Slam-Dunk" statement. Gosh, golly, I really believed ol' George, yuh know--in fact, that's all I needed. What, me worry?

At the least, some of the sinister side of Dick Cheney shows through. If Secretary of State Colin Powell did in fact have such misgivings about the war, however, as stated in the book (and yet stayed on out of political loyalty and sent thousands to their deaths), I find it even harder to believe that G. W. Bush was the innocent bystander that Woodward paints him to be.

We returned this book because you sent it to us minus the first twenty or so pages. We did not read this book.

A lot has been said here. Woodward tells a straight story and has incredible access to Bush Administration officials. As a whole, this is a great portrait of the group psychology that fumbled post-war planning in Iraq.

Rumsfeld is the main villain, and probably justly, but one wonders how Bush could allow Condi Rice to maintain such a weak NSC and so let Rumsfeld (who *everyone* hated and vocally opposed) have his way. Bush comes off as naive here, and so complicit perhaps in incompetence, but it is #1 a story of Rumsfeld. Not much attention is given to Bush as a prime-mover, and the Powell's virtual abdication as 'beacon of the good' in the pre-war run-up is treated lightly too.

Still, at $5.49 or less this is an incredible bargain and it flows terrifically with much dialogue. Check it out and see how poor planning, which bears a strict lesson of 'tread carefully' for any politician, may be the real culprit here.

I just reread _Plan of Attack_, and was struck by how much light it sheds on the currently unfolding drama swirling around Iran.

To the extent that President Bush still appears to believe that it is his sacred duty to strike pre-emptively at evil wherever he finds it, then the current "coercive diplomacy" being aimed at Iran--the current exemplar of his "axis of evil"--seems likely to end in war, just as it did in Iraq.

The parallels between the developments that Woodward reports on in the run-up to the war in Iraq, and what we are seeing with respect to Iran, are eerie--the distortion and exaggeration of intelligence to justify the war, the simultaneous building up of forces in the region, and the willingness to shift justifications as needed, jump from the page.

At this moment, December of 2007, when we are learning that our own intelligence does not support the existence of a nuclear threat from Iran, we're also seeing the neocon establishment attack the messengers, and re-focus on Iran's intent rather than capability. Unless Bush and those around him have experienced a real change of heart, the White House depicted by Woodward can be expected to redouble its efforts to bring about regime change in Iran, rather than admit any errors and change course.

I strongly recommend giving _Plan of Attack_ a read or re-read right now, certainly for what it says about how and why we got into Iraq, but even more for what it may presage about Iran.

Woodward seems to have a little industry of churning these books out (and other people doing a lot of the work).

This book shares the faults and good points of the earlier book: basically a recounting of a lot of meetings that we were never in...but still a limited picture of what people were REALLY thinking...and no analysis of what they SHOULD have been thinking.

Somehow it seems just a bit richer and more interesting than the previous one. As if either the events were more intriguing or Woodward had warmed to his subject more. But still...too much of a reportorial data dump.

Very well-written and informative book, but the person "reading" the book had a somewhat monotone voice. Really detracted from it. Worth reading -but not worth buying the book on tape.

Bob Woodward's follow up to "Bush at War", "Plan of Attack" is a big improvement from the previous book. Woodward, a mainstay in political circles was privy to an amazing amount of information through interviews, memo's, manuscripts, presentations and transcripts. It is this access that allows the reader into the discussions, maneuvering, and planning of the pre-emptive strike against Iraq.

"Plan of Attack" opens two (2) months after 9/11 when Bush instructed Rumsfield to develop a new war plan for Iraq, and the book brings the reader along for the ride as the players move towards the inevitable. The book is reasonably balanced and provides enough ammunition for the "anti-Iraq war" and the "pro-Iraq war" segments. Both sides able to use this book to further promote their views becasue the key players knew how to use Woodward to promote their objectives.

It was interesting to see evidence that the Iraq war was pre-ordained when Cheney already had it as a priority before Bush's inauguration. However, it was also interesting to see that Bush was not Cheney's puppet as some would believe. Bush made some decisions early on in the strategizing that moved the country towards war even before the administration knew their decision: "Axis of Evil" speech, Iraq intelligence gathering that ignited mobilization of the Iraq people, and the Saudi Arabia agenda are some examples. Although some of Bush's early mistakes helped force our hand into war, he also clearly thought he was doing right thing with no hidden agendas. Regardless of the flawed intelligence, Bush believed he was making the world a more peaceful place through democracy in Iraq.

The personality and policy clashes (Tenet's manipulation, Powell's contradiction between opposing the war and selling it, Franks always the loyal soldier but disdain for Rumsfeld's team and their demands, Cheney opposing Powell's suggested approaches) was very interesting. Other gems within the book are: the full court press in selling this war to America and other nations, the CIA's intelligence effort, Saudi Arabia's influence and the ineffectiveness at the UN.

Very well done.

Bob Woodward's follow up to "Bush at War", "Plan of Attack" is a big improvement from the previous book. Woodward, a mainstay in political circles was privy to an amazing amount of information through interviews, memo's, manuscripts, presentations and transcripts. It is this access that allows the reader into the discussions, maneuvering, and planning of the pre-emptive strike against Iraq.

"Plan of Attack" opens two (2) months after 9/11 when Bush instructed Rumsfield to develop a new war plan for Iraq, and the book brings the reader along for the ride as the players move towards the inevitable. The book is reasonably balanced and provides enough ammunition for the "anti-Iraq war" and the "pro-Iraq war" segments. Both sides able to use this book to further promote their views becasue the key players knew how to use Woodward to promote their objectives.

It was interesting to see evidence that the Iraq war was pre-ordained when Cheney already had it as a priority before Bush's inauguration. However, it was also interesting to see that Bush was not Cheney's puppet as some would believe. Bush made some decisions early on in the strategizing that moved the country towards war even before the administration knew their decision: "Axis of Evil" speech, Iraq intelligence gathering that ignited mobilization of the Iraq people, and the Saudi Arabia agenda are some examples. Although some of Bush's early mistakes helped force our hand into war, he also clearly thought he was doing right thing with no hidden agendas. Regardless of the flawed intelligence (thanks Tenet), Bush believed he was making the world a more peaceful place through democracy in Iraq.

The personality and policy clashes (Tenet's manipulation, Powell's contradiction between opposing the war and selling it, Franks always the loyal soldier but disdain for Rumsfeld's team and their demands, Cheney opposing Powell's suggested approaches) was very interesting. Other gems within the book are: the full court press in selling this war to America and other nations, the CIA's intelligence effort, Saudi Arabia's influence and the ineffectiveness at the UN.

Very well done.

The central problem with this book is that kind of like an official government history. Woodward has access to everyone but the price of it is that he has to stick to presenting what amounts to the official spin of all the main players involved.

Rumsfeld, Cheney and minions wanted the war to be played up as George Bush's idea. They were just the failful minions carrying out his plan. Colin Powell wanted to be portrayed as the tragic lone voice in the wilderness questioning the war. And absolutely everyone involved wanted the maximum possible blame for everything imaginable to be heaped on George Tenant. Tenant, being a Clinton apointee without a friend among these people was the natural place to dump the blame for everyting that went wrong. Woodward manages to masterfully put out all the conflicting ideas that his sponsors wanted without taking sides or offending anyone who mattered for the next book.

With a few years of hindsight and journalistic scandals, the flaws of the book appear even worse than they once did. The selective quotes given to Woodward in service of Cheney/Rumsfeld in making the war "Bush's fault" and blaming George Tenant for all the intelligence/WMD problems are all the move obvious now.

Tommy Franks gets off way too light in the book. He was the one person who could have stood up to Rumsfeld but he didn't. He allowed himself to be intimidated and then he ran off into retirement and book-writing as soon as he could declare mission accomplished in Iraq.

Ultimately for all the access, all the interviews and all the source material there is incredibly little real insight into how the decisions to go to war were made. All we get is person after person spinning the story to push their own agenda with the author providing no filter of any sort.

As an alternative, I would recommend Cobra II by Gordon and Trainor. Its not as easy a read as Woodward's book, but it has far, far more details about the planning and execution of the war without political spin and white house gossip.

Mr Woodward presents the reader with the details that lead up to the BUSH jr war on Iraq. His access to the insiders shows us what can be done with thorough interviewing and skilled journalistic technique. This book reveals some of the flasw in the decision making and should hopefully show the reader how our leaders can fool eachotehr to 'coming on board'.

The product arrived as described and provides an insight into what Bush really intends to do.

The product arrived as described and provides an insight into what Bush really intends to do.

Author tries to present very detailed report how the decision to invade Iraq and preparations of the war developed. We got day by day relation what happened in highest offices in Washington. Certainly this report is objective and impartial, the facts presented are true and the sequence of events is correct. But something is missing, probably the national and global context. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are shown as the only figures wanting to go to war, while the forces in US and abroad pushing them are mentioned very marginally. This book is a good source for another book writen by some historian in the future about reasons and outcome of the war in Iraq.

this book is a great follow up to Bush at War. provides a clear concise view of what was going on.

Thoughtful, poignant, well researched and masterfully executed

With the skill of a refined journalist that he is - Woodward gets people who count to talk.

`Plan of Attack' is based on Woodward's interviews with key players in the Bush Administration and United States military, including on-the-record sessions with President Bush. It chronicles and analyzes executive-level memos and transcripts of sensitive phone calls. This book is packed with the kind of quality information that is traditionally classified/secret until years after a military engagement concludes.

That said, `Plan of Attack' an easy read. Woodward, the veteran journalist, does not talk down to his readers, but he explains the complex intricacies of military planning and political strategy in terms that a fifth-grader could understand.

`Plan of Attack' is a very effective primmer for anybody interested in factual account of the build-up to war with Iraq.

I highly recommend this book!

I read this book again after reading Bob's new book of the series, State of Denial, and it's really a good read. You'll see how irrational, insane and crazy the nation's leaders can become if they are overly obsessed with their convictions or agendas. It is unfortunate that the country and the soldiers in Iraq have to suffer because of the stupid war.

However, I still doubt that President Buch deliberately lied to American people on the intelligence leading to the war. I'm not a Buch supporter. I am just not convinced that he deliberately mislead the public on the matter. We know that Iraq's pursuit of WMD was the centerpiece of the Bush White House's argument to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime. Many people believed that Iraq still had WMD before the war. After all, Saddam Hussein's Iraq had WMD before and had used WMD in wars against Iran and the Kurds. Besides, Iraq had played cat and mouse with weapon inspectors of United Nations for years--at least it appeared to be so. As a result, when Saddam Hussein claimed that Iraq had completely destroyed WMD and no longer had WMD, it contradicted with what people would believe and few people believed his claims. Many people believed that Iraq still had WMD before the US invasion.

As you may already know, what you believe or want to believe can make you both sharp-sighted and blind. As a result of that, it was difficult for the Bush administration to examine all the intelligence analytically. In essence, the conclusion was already made. The administration had already perceived Saddam a threat and had already decided to launch the war.

It was also possible that the Bush team didn't believe the evidence. If so, almost certainly they believed it was only that they had not uncovered the needed evidence yet. Almost certainly they firmly believed that Iraq still had WMD and they could easily find it once Iraq was occupied by US forces. Almost certainly they were shocked to learn there was no WMD in Iraq. Almost certainly they were disappointed that they couldn't announce to the world they were right about it.

What a person believes can make him or her super sharp-sighted. In this case, it had made the Bush administration overly sharp-sighted, for they had seen and believed so many things that weren't true at all. What a person believes can also make him or her blind. In this case, it had made the administration virtually sightless, for it's astonishing that they could be so blind to so many obvious flaws in the intelligence.

Overall, it's quite a thrill to read the book. Bob, the legendary investigative reporter, demonstrates once again that his pen is forever sharp. No wonder he was able to shake and topple Nixon's presidency with Carl Bernstein as a young reporter. Read the book and you'll have an eye-opening realization that the most important decision of the country could be made in such a reckless way...

I read this book again after reading Bob's new book of the series, State of Denial, and it's really a good read. You'll see how irrational, insane and crazy the nation's leaders can become if they are overly obsessed with their convictions or agendas. It is unfortunate that the country and the soldiers in Iraq have to suffer because of the stupid war.

However, I still doubt that President Buch deliberately lied to American people on the intelligence leading to the war. I'm not a Buch supporter. I am just not convinced that he deliberately mislead the public on the matter. We know that Iraq's pursuit of WMD was the centerpiece of the Bush White House's argument to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime. Many people believed that Iraq still had WMD before the war. After all, Saddam Hussein's Iraq had WMD before and had used WMD in wars against Iran and the Kurds. Besides, Iraq had played cat and mouse with weapon inspectors of United Nations for years--at least it appeared to be so. As a result, when Saddam Hussein claimed that Iraq had completely destroyed WMD and no longer had WMD, it contradicted with what people would believe and few people believed his claims. Many people believed that Iraq still had WMD before the US invasion.

As you may already know, what you believe or want to believe can make you both sharp-sighted and blind. As a result of that, it was difficult for the Bush administration to examine all the intelligence analytically. In essence, the conclusion was already made. The administration had already perceived Saddam a threat and had already decided to launch the war.

It was also possible that the Bush team didn't believe the evidence. If so, almost certainly they believed it was only that they had not uncovered the needed evidence yet. Almost certainly they firmly believed that Iraq still had WMD and they could easily find it once Iraq was occupied by US forces. Almost certainly they were shocked to learn there was no WMD in Iraq. Almost certainly they were disappointed that they couldn't announce to the world they were right about it.

What we believe can make us super sharp-sighted. In this case, it had made the Bush administration overly sharp-sighted, for they had seen and believed so many things that weren't true at all. What we believe can also make us blind. In this case, it had made the administration virtually sightless, for it's astonishing that they could be so blind to so many obvious flaws in the intelligence.

Overall, it's quite a thrill to read the book. Bob, the legendary investigative reporter, demonstrates once again that his pen is forever sharp. No wonder he was able to shake and topple Nixon's presidency with Carl Bernstein as a young reporter. Read the book and you'll have an eye-opening realization that the most important decision of the country could be made in such a reckless way...

From the first moment I began to read Plan of Attack, what struck me the most was the very high quantity and quality of information that Woodward had amassed. The access to various public officials, including the president and major administration figures, was undoubtedly unprecedented, even for a guy like Woodward. He also gleans much information from notes taken by officials, memos, phone conversations, and even PowerPoint presentations. While reading this book, I was able to get a real impression of Bush, the way his administration works, how he makes decisions, and what drives him to make those decisions. The insights into high-level officials, particularly Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Tommy Franks, and George Tenet, are terrific as well. Given the constant stress, unmanageable workload, and frequent infighting (mostly with Cheney/Rumsfeld on one side and Powell on the other), it's not surprising that Powell, Franks, and Tenet have retired since the end of major combat operations. Not surprisingly, some officials come off better in the book than others. Bush himself probably benefited the most from his portrayal, while Tenet most undoubtedly suffered the most repercussions from his actions as CIA director, particularly his actions during an intelligence briefing on December 21, 2002 (I won't spoil the surprise).

In conclusion, I enjoyed Plan of Attack very much, and am glad that I received it as a Christmas gift. If you are in any way interested in the Bush Administration, the military, the intelligence community, or just current events, this book is a must-read. Also, if you have read one of Woodward's earlier books and enjoyed it, you will most likely also enjoy this book, though I can't vouch for that since this is my first Woodward book. I would highly recommend it to anyone searching for a fresh, in-depth account of the major events of the past four years and the people who shaped those events.

Mr Woodward: You are confusing us.
Equivocations are predominant in what you have written.

Democrats will buy your book as it can lead them to believe you are criticizing President Bush because his administration has caused hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to flee from one place to another and divide the country between the rival `ethnic' groups.
So, you are almost there.
Only the foolish had welcomed USA forces in Iraq and nothing could throw off the stupor that envelops the American public everyday with the mounting American causalities.

Republicans will also buy your book as it can lead them to believe you are supporting the daring and courageous actions taken by President Bush against Saddam Hussein because the Iraqi `tyrant' struck terror into the hearts of the `peaceful and happy' Iraqi people, and also you are reminding everyone that Hussein sponsored an attempt `to assassinate Mr Bush senior on a 1993 trip to the Middle East' (his visit to Kuwait). You have also alluded to the swift decline of morale in the Iraqi Army and their setbacks on the battlefield, which presaged its inevitable defeat and dissolution.
Also that USA is actually fighting against savages' medley of militias that have links with Al Qaeda.

In the Middle East, English readers are happy to see the marines `were in good shape.... ...although they are not used to fighting in contaminated environment if the Iraqis were to use chemical or biological weapons'
Whereas Arabic readers are seized by an ugly mood nearing despair when you are alluding to conspiracy between the Oil Tycoons to grab Iraq.

But still, everyone should buy your book as long as it makes us all happy.

BRAVO.

It was published in '04, and now, reading it in 09/06, as a latecomer all I can say is, it reads like the careful planning and pains-taking execution of an earth-shattering catastrophe. Years from now I expect George Bush will replace James Buchanan as America's worst president. For this reason alone, the book is or ought to be required reading. It is absolutely fascinating, even now as we look at the smoking ruins of cities and the heaps of corpses, both civilian and military.

Woodward keeps his focus on the incremental progress of planning for the war, and specifies early on, that the desire to attack Iraq, a country that did not threaten us, was expressed directly by Wubya almost immediately after he'd taken office. The book then, is a chronicle of the ways Bush's cabinet and subordinates found to impliment the President's will; seldom if ever questioning anything about Bush's directives. Motives for the war appear never to have been expressed, at that point, though there were drumbeats for the WMD argument.

Today, looking at the new Woodward book, and comparing it to this one -- or, reading them side-by-side -- an unmistakable pattern appears, which we can see beginning here. It is no coincidence that this is the nation's first Outsourced war. Because it was pushed through by the Republican Party at a time when the party dominated both houses of the legislature, held the Executive branch, and appeared to hold the Judiciary, there was never any debate about the feasibility of making "War" on anything as nebulous as Terrorism. Of all the european nations with terrorist problems, the UK, battling the IRA and other movements, never mobilized itself to fight a "War" on terrorism itself. Neither did Spain, dealing with the Basque separatist movement with it's spasms of violence. Both nations, like most european ones, combatted the phenomenon quietly, secretly, and with the cooperation of all political parties, and the intelligence services of political allies. However, as we read Bush's rationale for "Preemptive War" against a sovreign state, we come to understand that to pursue his aims, he had to have the Executive's full and unquestioned power of authority, given him by the legislature, and through Party manipulation, he got it.

Early on and prodded by Rumsfeld, General Franks assures the President and his co-conspirators, that their efforts to prepare before strike would be hidden by "the noise" of the Afghan war; in other words, the war in Afghanistan against the Taliband would act as a smoke screen for the "real" war Bush intended. The diplomatic smoke screen for the operation would be Bush's insistence that Sadaam's refusal to comply with UN inspections and rules, justified the US, as the "only Superpower" to force Iraq into compliance through direct, pre-emptive military attack. In other words, "Regieme Change."

OUTSOURCING: Of great interest is Woodward's reminder that Vice President Cheney before he was elected to the position, was made head of Halliburton of Texas, in 1995. By the time he took office, he had divested himself of his holdings. Traditionally that's a way of avoiding Conflict of Interest charges, either while in office, or after leaving it. At the time, inquiries into the Cheney - Halliburton connection were silenced by the statement that Cheney's stock was in a Blind Trust. Now, Blind Trusts are arrangements often used by businessmen-politicians. Their stocks and bonds are given to a fiduciary body, usually a bank with which they do and have done business, and that bank holds and secures the stock, often for the benefit of the politician's family. If the stock's value rises while he is in office, the value is added to the stock, but the politician may not touch it.

Today, we hear all kinds of wild figures about the cost of the Iraq war. The latest I heard was that it cost $3 billion a day, or $21 billion a week. (Times 52: you do the math.) Of course, that's just an estimate. However, the price becomes clearer when we realize that at least half of the noon-military personnel in Iraq, is provided by outside contractors who support the military effort (who get their work without competitive bidding) and who will be paid by the U.S. government. Of that large crowd of non-military individuals, many, if not most, are direct or indirect hirelings of Halliburton. Therefore, after three years of unresolved war, kept in suspension by a U.S. regime that insists we "stay the course," Halliburton without question, is due to bill the taxpayers for three years worth of work in Iraq. (At, say, half of $3 billion a day.) Now, Halliburton of Texas, which now quartermasters the military in Iraq, is one of the richest and most powerful suppliers to, and facilitators for the Oil Industry. It often works in conjunction with Bechtel, the great and rich Texas construction company, with strong traditional ties to the Oil Industry both here (on the gulf platforms) and abroad. The strategy appears to have been that Bechtel was to repair and/or rebuild not only the civilian infrastructure ruined by US bombing, but also the pipelines and pumping stations for Iraqi oil, as Halliburton fed, guarded and sheltered the personnel hired to do the work, shielded from the Iraquis by the American military. The party puffery of the day said this work on the Iraqui oil facilities, was to be paid for with Iraqui oil itself. This was nonsense. What it meant was that Anglo-American oil interests would pump Iraqui oil in quantity and at leisure, and that oil was to be refined probably in the immense refinery south of Houston. The gross profits of the sale of that refined product would have been used to reimburse the Anglo-American interests for their efforts, and some of the net, or whatever remained, would be given back to the Iranian nation and its people.

What is the purpose of this Outsourcing? It is beyond public scrutiny, in that the Legislature, both House and Senate, cannot touch it on National Security grounds. The money as private profit to Halliburton - Bechtel, enriches Texas business, generally. Big Business in Texas now, is GOP business, the biggest contributors to party funds are the big businesses of Texas, and the rich folk who both run and benefit from them. As the DeLay investigations show, big GOP money originating in Texas can be and often is funneled into GOP political contests, nation-wide, in defiance of election law. Therefore, we find the attempt to both exclude the Democratic party from participation in this war, like the attempt to slur them as cowards who refuse to support it, is a means to keep the war and the profit from it, securely in GOP party hands. The so-called War On Terrorism, is in reality BUSH OIL II, the purpose of which is to create profits for the President's political party.

Richard Nixon's effect on the nation, though toxic, and profoundly corrupt, was paltry by comparison. Perhaps never in our nation's history has the country been mobilized to fight a war merely to flatter a monomaniac's vanity. The rationale for the conflict, and its planning and execution, read like a re-telling of one of the last of the Byzantine Emperors, any of the Paleologai, who, with judgment clouded by flatery and self-adulation, launched an ill-equipped attack against one of his adversaries and wound up infuriating and mobilizizng every state around him into an attack.

How will we explain it to our grandchildren? And will we have to explain it in either Spanish, or Chinese?

It was published in '04, and now, reading it in 09/06, as a latecomer all I can say is, it reads like the careful planning and pains-taking execution of an earth-shattering catastrophe. Years from now I expect George Bush will replace James Buchanan as America's worst president. For this reason alone, the book is or ought to be required reading. It is absolutely fascinating, even now as we look at the smoking ruins of cities and the heaps of corpses, both civilian and military. Richard Nixon effect on the nation, though toxic, was paltry by comparison. Perhaps never in our nation's history has the country been mobilized to fight a war merely to flatter a monomaniac's vanity. The rationale for the conflict, and its planning and execution, read like a re-telling of one of the last of the Byzantine Emperors, any of the Paleologai, who, with judgment clouded by flatery and self-adulation, launched an ill-equipped attack against one of his adversaries and wound up infuriating and mobilizizng every state around him into an attack.

How will we explain it to our grandchildren? And will we have to explain it in either Spanish, or Chinese?

If you're anything like me, then you've probably been frustrated on more than one occasion when you've looked through your local bookstore's/library's collection of current political events books in a vain attempt to educate yourself as to what has happened in our world since 2000. Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward was my first attempt to learn more about the causes and effects of events that have shaped recent history. I picked it because Bob Woodward was a familiar name (he helped expose the Watergate scandal) out of the dozens of unfamiliar ones and it claimed to have more personal interview time with key people than others on the same subject.

The most important thing, I feel, for a potential reader to know before deciding to pick this book up is that it's not trying to address whether or not America should have gone to war with Iraq (the social/political/moral aspect), but rather to detail the series of events leading up to the war (more of a "step by step" explanation of the process of making war). Although politics does play a part in this book (both internal and external to the White House), it takes a back seat to the main theme of the book: the planning and preparation of the Iraq war.

Overall, I think this book would appeal to both supporters and critics of the war, although I feel that it portrays Bush administration in a slightly more positive light.

I would recommend it for no other reason than it shows the process the Bush administration had to go through both in front and behind the scenes in order to accomplish its goals.

For a closed, secretive administration I was very surprised that so much was open to Bob. Rove's thinking was that this war will be a crowning achievement so let's get a major author to document how we did it. Well Woodward laid it out in detail. You feel you are in the room when it was all happening. You see the power plays and the intricate manuvering. This is the third of my favorite Bush books that I feel tell the complete story to date on our current President. The first is "Fortunate Son" by Hatfield which covers Bush through the Governorship and the second is "Price of Loyality" by Suskind which covers the early days of the administration. Obviously a fourth book will cronicle the disastous war and the fallout thereof. I doubt there will be much to write about Bush after 2008.

Some two years after the US invasion of Iraq and the failure to find any WMD's President Bush "admitted" that the intel(-ligence) was faulty. In early January 2001 before Bush was inaugurated as President of the United States, Vice President-elect Dick Cheney passed a message to then Secretary of Defense William Cohen asking that Bush be briefed on matters of national security. Topic A should be Iraq, specified Cheney. During the briefing Bush was more interested in the peppermints on the table than what was said, Cheney nodded off, and Rumsfeld kept asking the speakers to speak louder. After the briefing Cohen believed that the new administration would see that there was not much support in the Near East for an attack on Iraq.

A few days later (still in January of 2001) Bush received a second briefing from George Tenet, Director of the CIA, and his deputy James Pavitt. Tenet and Pavitt agreed that there were three major threats to the United States. Number One was Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Second was WMD's. Third was China. Iraq was barely mentioned.

72 days after 9-11, President Bush clamped his arm on Rumsfeld and said," I need to see you." The arm clamping was a gesture between close friends. Before Rumsfeld became Secretary of Defense, he was interviewed by Bush. Rumsfeld characterized the defensive posture of the Clinton Administration as "reflexive pullback" (Rumsfeld did not have Bosnia in mind) whereas Rumsfeld believed that the new Bush administration should be "forward-leaning." 72 days after 9-11 Bush wanted to know what kind of plans the Secretary of Defense could muster for an attack on Iraq.

The "intellectual" godfather of regime change in Iraq was Paul Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz proposed the enclave strategy. Wolfowitz believed that the US could send troops into southern Iraq and
seize some 1000 oil wells, about two-thirds of all of Iraq's production. From this enclave, support would be given to forces opposing Saddam Hussein. Colin Powell thought Wolfowitz was talking as if 25 million Iraqis would rush to oppose
Hussein. "This is lunacy," Powell said.

On 9-11 some 3000 Americans died. That very same day Rumsfeld raised the question with his staff the possibility of "going after Iraq as a response to the terrorist attacks." The next day, in the inner circle of Bush's war cabinet, Rumsfeld asked if the attacks did not present an "opportunity" to attack Iraq. In an interview a year later, Bush said that Rumsfeld was wise for trying to show that the war of terror was global.

But at that time, it had not been shown that there was _no_ collaborative relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. That is, it had not been shown to the American public. Since that time it has been shown to the American public that there was no collaborative relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, that there were no WMD's, and that the CIA tried to tell this to the Bush administration six months before the US invasion. By then it did not matter. By then it did not matter what the intel found; it was all about regime change. Bush's centerpiece of his "war" on terror never was about 9-11; it was about regime change.

I found this book to be insightful of the white house and how it operates....

Bob does a good job as always.

Bob Woodward of Watergate fame provides a compelling first person account of the events leading up to the Iraq war. With a cast of characters composed of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Armitage, Wolfowitz, the book gives us an insider's view as the United States prepared itself for the inevitable.

The considerable preparations included scouting the enemy territory with CIA operatives even when the planning was still on its early stages, formation of coalitions with other nation states and evaluation of intelligence to aid in the final decision.

The US was not wanting in coalition partners at least with respect to the leaders of its customary allies. Blair was quite unequivocal in his support at the risk of the prime ministership not to mention Howard of Australia and Aznar of Spain who would eventually pay for it in the long term. There was some tacit support provided by Saudi Arabia provided the US followed through on its promise to oust Saddam.

Contrary to the descriptions of him in other books, Bush is portrayed as a resolute leader who ultimately made the decision to wage war. A lot of people advised him though, Cheney in particular, dissuaded him from seeking the first UN resolution but was rebuffed.

Though this book definitively answers the what's and how's of the war, it does not provide the true reason for it(Suskind's "The Price of Loyalty" also does not), WMD, Al Qaeda notwithstanding. The book's narrative starts when the decision was made in Bush's head at least and goes from there. Somehow, Woodward leaves it to the reader to reach his/her own conclusion in the context of 9/11. Also, he seems quite reluctant to pass judgment on the war decision.

Democracy has been touted so much so that one of the reasons for the war was to bequeath freedom to the Iraqi people. Though people have a say who governs for a specific term, the decision to go to war rests on one man alone. History has always been the unflinching judge of outcomes, intended or unintended. Iraq's has yet to be written.

This is certainly one of Woodward's better efforts. I didnt find a "cheerleader" mentality for the administration as has been asserted by some. I did find it extremely interesting on how Woodward was able to clearly delineate the differences within the administration on whether to go to war or not.
Would have liked to have seen more on Rumsfeld, who I believe escapes closer scrutiny in this book, as to his exact role in the decision for war.
I also think General Franks gets off pretty lightly on the failure of the administration to adequately prepare for the "end of hostilities" and what the exact plan for the occupation would be--per Colin Powell's State Dept's concern.
Very quick read, and excellent insight (as usual) by Woodward into the inner sanctum of decision-making in the highest levels of government.

I got this book a year ago as a Christmas gift, and I read it eagerly over the holidays. At the time, I thought it was riveting and even tense reading. But I was also slightly bothered at the time that there seemed to be no sense of perspective outside the telling of the events. Woodward comes off not like an objective reporter, but a cheerleader for the Administration...and in retrospect, that drawback is more plain than ever. I also found it interesting that Woodward's book confirms that President Bush had planned to attack Iraq since the beginning of his Presidency, since Clarke took some heat over making a similar assertion. This book is very good reading because Woodward captures the voice of all the principal players in the highest levels of the Bush Administration, but with what's happened in Iraq today, and with Woodward himself being embroiled in a clear conflict of interest, one has to ask the question, what price access?

Although Woodward chimes in using first-person too often here as in "Bush At War," almost as if he were one of the principals, this book has far more meat in it than its predecessor. He mentions a great number of details that I had never heard about in regard to our prewar inside-Iraq CIA operations and many other tidbits in the military planning, some of them very informative. Although I can't stand reading Woodward's ongoing interview processes with the principals ("We had dinner at my house," he says of one, "he brought the dinner and I brought the plates. . ." distracting, pointless anecdotes), I found this book by far Woodward's best constructed, though again I was bothered by his conclusions. All along he seems to support the planning and military operations, the diplomatic attempts and setbacks, and overall notes the efforts with implied approval, but after combat ended in Iraq he tries to be foremost in stating that our reasons for war were all "wrong." History alone will tell whether or not good things came out of our intervention in Iraq. Woodward waits until the very last pages before suggesting aversely what History has yet to tell, preferring instead to praise every player & every action, everything almost EXCEPT the single reason Bush used for going in.

why doesn't the media, and the moribund democrats read this book? They might learn something. I only wish Woodward would repeat some of the agencys' full names, there are so damn many of them.

The worst thing that could happen would be to allow a nation like Iraq, run by Saddam Hussein, to develope weapons of mass destruction AND THEN team up with terrorist organizations so they can blackmail the world" (emphasis added). Such are President Bush's words & his evolving reasoning post September 11th; which led him to ask this of Donald Rumsfeld on 11-21-2001: "What kind of a war plan do we have for Iraq?" This book by Mr Woodward is the story of what happened next. Rumsfeld had improvised the plans for Afghanistan, but now he was getting the opportunity to get ahead of the curve. He directed General Tommy Franks to review what was on the shelf vis-a-vis Iraq. 5 weeks later Franks was briefing Bush on his preliminary views. This he was asked to do in Crawford so that Bush could gauge the character of the man who Bush would have to rely upon; that is, if he were to chose to pursue this matter militarily. From there Franks kept tweaking and revamping the plan to shorten the time required to build up forces; mostly by determining what needed to be done, when, and whose help would be needed to facilitate such requirements. Franks contributed the "notion of spikes"---how to postition materials and forces into place in a manner as much under the radar, so to speak, as possible. By March of 2002 Franks was himself becoming convinced that his planning didn't just fall within the realm of possibilities by this point anymore, but was rather likely to be eventually acted upon. That's the primal point that is apparent in this book by Mr. Woodward---that the "momentum of war" was pushing this along after 9/11. So that by the time President Bush challenged the UN (September 12, 2002) to address Iraq or become irrelevent, the die was already set. The intervention of Prime Ministers Blair, Howard (Australia), and Aznar (Spain), as well as Secretary Powell, were seemingly responsible for giving the United Nations this one last chance to particiate in enforcing the dozen-plus UN resolutions that Saddam was breeching. The Bush administration thus found itself in a convenient position. Saddam, whose position was becoming progressivelhy less precarious up until September 11th, immediately was thrown back on the ropes, so to speak, as a result of that day's developments. Say---if your predilection is such---that 9/11 gave Bush the excuse to go after Saddam, but it could just as easily be said that Septmber 11th did shock Bush into the belief that al-Qaeda was not simply going to be defeated by denying them sanctuary in Afghanistan; that the Arafat---who spat on the peace plan presented him by Ehud Barak & Clinton---wasn't going to shoulder his pistol as long as he was championed by Saddam; and that one couldn't gamble that in the future al-Qaeda and Saddam wouldn't formalize the alliance that existed philosophically between them concerning their hatred of Western Civilization and/or America. So, was the Iraq was a pre-emptive one? Absolutely. But that doesn't negate the fact that Iraq was in breech of countless UN Security Council Chapter 7 Resolutions (which are subject to enforcement---unlike General Assembly resolutions against Israel, for instance, which have no enforcement mechanism; and are, in actuality, thus purely political). So we have two books in one, in effect, thanks to Mr. Woodward: an exposition of the planning toward war with Iraq, as well as the overlay of the endgame of Saddam's decade long cat & mouse game vis-a-vis the United Nations. It certainly makes for fascinating reading. Cheers!

Bob Woodward gets another book with insight to what the key policy makers in Washington, D.C. circles were thinking during the events that lead up to and during the U.S invasion of Iraq. I just question how objective can Mr. Woodward be, when most of his sources are in the White House, including the Commander-in-Chief himself. Is it possible that this book in itself is part of the White House spin to cover for no WMD's not being found. Reelection of the Bush White House gives Mr. Woodward better terms with his reelected sources for another book with more insightful quotes from powerful key figures. I sure Mr. Woodard was not going to bite the hand that feeds him when publishing Plan of Attack during an election year. I feel that anyone who reads this book will found plenty of information to draw their own conlusions of why the U.S. invaded Iraq. It is true that there is information for both sides of those who support or don't support the U.S.'s war effort in Iraq. This book gives the reader a better understanding of why the current White House got involved in Iraq. Not a bad book and not a waste of time for the reader no matter what your opinion is on this matter of Iraq today.
Best wishes to the people of Iraq and a safe return for our troops and our allies too. Maybe this book will the reader get more involved when our elected leaders create new forgein policy for our country and the policy that affects our world neighbors.

Woodward is very good at providing what seems to be an accurate decription of the events that led up to the Second Gulf War. He also adequately captures the mentality and motivations of the actors at each stage of events, as they move towards war. What was missing, in my view, was a larger narrative or overarching theme: it seemed to read like a very long page one article, focused on getting the facts right, while leaving larger judgements to the reader.

I suppose there is a virtue to this approach, but I have to confess it made reading the book a bit tedious for me at points. In some instances the book was quite incisive. For example, Woodward recounts how, in an interview with Bush after the war has commenced, he told Bush how Blair had confessed that when he received letters from bereaved parents, saying how much they hated him for killing their child, he - Blair - could not help but experience doubts about the rightness of the whole operation. Without a moment of reflection, Bush bluntly responded by stating he never experienced any doubts about the war, not even in similar situations.

The key difference between the mentalities of the war's chief proponents, neatly captured in about 200 words. Unfortunately, such moments of insight were perhaps too few and far between over the course of 400 pages, at least to my liking.

This work by Woodward gives a terrific insight into the minds of Bush and those around him at a period of great emotional stress.

After 9/11 there was bound to be a vengeful attitude. The rout in Afghanistan planted the seeds of the Bush Administration Folly In Iraq. Sorry, but one must call it as one sees it.

As I listened to this audio I was struck by the realization that the Bush Administration does a great job of following the script. When circumstances deviate significantly, however, the Bush Administration mirrors Bush - there is no ability to improvise or to funadmentally adjust to the new reality.

First case in point is Iraq after Saddam Hussein was ousted. The military succeeded in their task beyond expectations. It was only afterwards that America got caught in the quagmire that is obviously a civil war between the Sunnis and Shias (fought for the Shias by American and British troops).

Second case in point is Louisiana and Mississippi the five days after Hurricane Katrina. The Bush Administration was unable to do anything quickly because they had no script!

Two points more - Colin Powell should have resigned when it became clear to him that Bush had decided to go to war. To figure out why I say so, I encourage you to buy the book.

The second point is that Woodward probably should not be writing news for the Post plus writing books of this sort. The sacrifice that he has to make to gain access and insight has to be paid by his inability to report his insights when he has them in the daily newspaper for fear such comments will reduce his access. He may not recognize the cost, but it is apparent to many of us readers.

I suggest also that to understand Pres. George Bush one needs only watch old western television series. He might see himself as Wyatt Earp but, to his opponents, he is one of the Clantons. For further insight you should travel to westwardho.us and read some pithy comments.
[...]

...and Woodward printed it without corroboration. Take the famous "Slam Dunk" story that appears halfway through the book. George Tenet, CIA director, and John McLaughlin, deputy CIA director, brief the president on Iraq's WMD intelligence, and the presentation is underwhelming. Bush says that the information isn't going to convince "Joe Public," so he asked Tenent, "This is the best we've got?" Tenet reassured the president that "it's a slam dunk case" that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. In a CBS interview, Woodward said he "asked the president about this, and he said it was very important to have the CIA director, 'slam-dunk' is as I interpreted it, a sure thing, guaranteed." However, in the CNN Presents show "Dead Wrong", which aired on August 21, 2005, it was reported that although George Tenet may have said the words "slam dunk" during the course of that meeting, he did not say them in the context suggested by the president. Tenet refuses to talk about the incident now that Bush bestowed on him the Medal of Freedom. Also, John McLaughlin was interviewed on the program and said that Tenet never characterized Iraq WMD programs as a "slam dunk." In other words, the president lied to Woodward about the events, and Woodward printed the uncorroberated lie. For such lazy reporting, perhaps Woodward should share a prison cell with Judith Miller.

Woodward's story jumps back and forth frequently, breaking the narrative in jarring ways, perhaps to hide the fact that the story doesn't hold water. Only the Epilogue is interesting.

Don't buy the book. Instead, borrow it from your library, and highlight all the sections that don't seem credible. No need to make Woodward richer for being a Bush whore.

I found Plan of Attack a very good book. It gives "hoi polloi" an understanding of the inner-workings of the Bush Administration's war cabinet and of the personalities behind it. With a few more wars to come in the future, this book gives us a good understanding of how decisions are come to amongst top level personnel (the principals).

For example, this book really hammered home how important presidential speeches are on questions of war and diplomacy: they are essentially a consensus of the various bureaucracies that have jurisdiction over national security and defence. We need to pay close attention to these speeches! Another example can be found on page 181, where Rumsfeld describes how decisions are made by the National Security Council.

There is no doubt that if we judge this book on the question of its usefulness in understanding the inner machinations of top level - the principals - deliberations then it's a very good book. Rumsfeld's deep involvement in the planning of the war was very interesting and informative. We rarely get to here such insights from the people at the top, literally, of governance anywhere in the world.

The book also leaves a number of questions (many actually). I particularly would like to hear the account of others, such as Colin Powell and Richard Armitage. It's clear that very little thought was put into post-war planning. I also find Dick Cheney's whole approach slightly disturbing, particularly when so much is at stake. Even last week (mid June 2005) Cheney was on TV telling us the insurgency is in its "last throws." This sort of denial of reality is counterproductive, but if one reads Plan of Attack then one is not surprised. In this sense, Plan of Attack gives us a good feel of the characters of the principal actors - very useful indeed.

The downside of this book is its poor organisation. More thought should have been put into this aspect, especially considering that it's over 400 pages.

All in all, I highly recommend the book as a partial account of the decision making process that went into the Iraq war.