I suppose you can draw whatever conclusions you want from Mr. Woodward's "Bush At War" depending on your political slant. For those considering the book, I ask you to look at it impartially - it is a fascinating study into presidential decision making, and can be considered a primary source for research purposes. The decision making portrayed here are those of President Bush, and despite attacks from either end of the spectrum directed at Mr. Woodward, he has, as always, turned a reporter's eye to the sequence of events that led to the decision to go to war in Afghanistan.

I read this book twice - once when I first bought it when it was published, and recently. The hindsight history provides us made it read like two different books. What we see is a president not at all aloof, detached, or non-informed about the affaris of his government, but a resolute wartime leader setting the course for the future of the war on terror. From there you can draw your own conclusions - we have the "with us or against us" policy in the days after 9/11, which at the time seemed an approporiate, passionate, and emotional response to the tragedy. That policy in microcosm was exactly the correct policy as it pertianed to Pakistan in the days after 9/11, for example, but its broad application to other world events (Iraq, as we were soon to find out) was to prove much more difficult. We also see the inner workings of Bush's inner circle, the War Cabinet.

Mr. Woodward's book does not read like a novel - sometimes you feel that he is reprinting a transcript of the meetings right after they happened. This, while at times difficult to maintian attention to, is exactly the service he has provided - a first-hand account of events and decisions as they were made, without filter. The conclusions he reaches are based on those accounts, and are not partisan. He calls it like he sees it. His thorough research and interviews, many with the president himself, have to be seen as more authoritative than the views of any pundit.

I'm looking forward to Mr. Woodward's other books in the "Bush At War" series. My challenge to myself and to the rest of you is to stop seeing this topic through partisan lenses and begin to take Mr. Woodward's contributions here as the narrative of history as it was made. We will all be more informed and better citizens as a result.

For those who give any credibility to Bush and his Neo-Conservative Administration, this will be an enjoyable dosage of literary pornography-you will be informed on nothing you are not already aware of, but may be provided with a warm feeling of admiration for those you consider to be decisive heroes.

For the rest of us, who are now only too aware that the war in Afghanistan was a pitiful necessity for the Bush Administration, and who understand that the primary focus was constantly on Iraq, this will be a rather odious insight into the credulity that passes for journalism.

Beginning with the collapse of the Twin Towers, the book traces, in an exceedingly obtuse manner, the proceedings of Bush's War Cabinet in planning of Afghanistan, the `war on terror', and ultimately Iraq. Despite the notion of journalistic impartiality, these events are recounted in a manner extremely sympathetic to the Bush Administration, attempting to portray this racket of truth-fiddlers as courageous and altruistic. Constructed as a novel, the reader is invited to read the discussions and debates between members of the War Cabinet, eventually leading to their decision. Considering the information was gathered by Woodward from interviews with members of the War Cabinet, one is hardly going to receive unbiased depiction of these meeting.

If one wishes to learn about how the members of a truly deceitful organization perceive themselves, then look no further than this. For those wishing to read an account of the path to war, from a realistic perspective, I would suggest looking elsewhere.

This book is not an opinion piece--it's nearly a minute-by-minute matter-of-fact transcript of what transpired in the Bush administration in the first 100 days after 9/11, up to the capture of Kabul.

There are no sweeping judgments here, just the facts, in an accessible and readable style. If you're after a wholesale condemnation of the Bush administration, this book won't satisfy you. But if you want a kind of step-by-step chronology of what happened and when, with explanations along the way, I don't know of a better source.

The book recounts the basic events that we've all read in the newspapers at greater detail and while adding some original information based on meeting transcripts and interviews. The main thing we get is some sense of the personalities and their struggles amongst themselves and to deal with events. But we still don't get a GOOD look at them, that really gives deep insights.

The reportorial style does a disservice to the story. We get neither insightful analysis NOR detailed sourced history. Also, it seems that Woodward used co-authors but did not give them a byline. In addition, it seems that Woodward had different access from different people and in different areas and it's hard not to think that this has affected his slant and his ability to capture what really happened of interest.

It's not that this thing is a complete mess. It's readable. It's about something important. But I kept wishing that I had gotten a better book.

"Bush at War" takes us inside the Bush Cabinet's decision making process after the 9/11 attacks. It's a fascinating look at how and why the Emperor and his paladins (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, et al)decided to do what they did...if this account is true. This book is not investigative journalism or a legitimate history. It makes no attempt to provide a broader picture of events or verify the assertions made by the subjects being interviewed. In a surprising and disappointing role for the man who brought down Nixon, Bob Woodward plays the part of obedient scribe, unquestioningly taking down the retrospective accounts of the Administration's VIPs. Basically, "Bush at War" is a book-length and better-written version of the New York Post.

While I question the value of reading such a one-sided account, and the propriety of a journalist acting as stenographer for such one-sided accounts, I don't necessarily think the book is a complete snowjob. After all, it deals with relatively noncontroversial events that few would have much cause to lie about. After all, there was almost universal consent for the overthrow of the Taliban and the invasion of Afghanistan. So, if you enjoy reading about high level meetings, the technical details of how the Administration supported the Northern Alliance or decided on its war strategy, then I think you can put a lot of credence in this book, even if its uncritical report forces you to take it with a grain of salt. One aspect that piqued my personal skepticism though is the disconnect between the bumbling frat boy Bush we see on the news every night, who has incompetently mismanaged our government for 7 years and who has not yet mastered the English language, and this book's portrayal of a President who was humble and mindful of the limitations of his foreign policy and military experience, whose understanding of problems was subtle and keen, and who chaired these war meetings with authority and intelligence. Decide for yourself whether to believe this book or your own eyes and 7 years of the public record. In any case, the book doesn't deal with the important issues that are at the heart of widespread accusations of incompetence and malfeasance against this Administration: namely the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks, despite myriad warnings and indications, and the neoconservative manipulation and invention of intelligence to justify the war against Iraq.

To be sure, Woodward tells us that people like Wolfowitz and Cheney were pushing to attack Iraq along with Afghanistan in the days after 9/11, but that's hardly a revelation. It was well known that the neoconservative cult was publicly calling for war on Iraq throughout the 1990s. What was even more interesting was Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's assertion, in his own book, that Bush was planning for war with Iraq from the first days of his_administration_. In any case, "Bush at War" tells us that the President overruled his neocons and put Iraq on the back burner_for the moment_. What was surprising, and disgusting, was that even people like Powell, who were opposed to any attack on Iraq, merely tabled the Iraq War for tactical reasons (e.g. it would hurt the Coalition, let's deal with one enemy at a time, etc.) rather than openly opposed it because of its inherent insanity and injustice. That kind of pusillanimous dissent perfectly captures the character of the good soldier Powell and other Bush loyalists, who preferred to serve their President rather than their nation.

My opinion of the value of this book is on the low side of the scale, but if you must read it, supplement it with books that will give you a larger picture of the America that Bush created.

Author Bob Woodward has succeeded in letting President George Bush and his cabinet tell their story of the 9-11 attacks on the United States and the decision to go to war in Afghanistan. I was surprised with the amount of information Bush and his cabinet willingly provided to Woodward, making this book stunning in its level of detail and insight on every aspect of the war.

James Naughton, who reads the book, does great job and is at his best when reading the portions of the book attributed to Bush.

Bob Woodward could have just as easily ghost-written President Bush's memoirs of the 100 days post-Sept. 11.

There are almost no critical questions asked in this book, no opposing viewpoints presented and very little context provided. These aren't bad qualities in somebody's memoirs--afterall, you want their perspective--but its a dangerous quality in something that purports to be a history of a key moment in the Bush Administration.

At a few particularly disturbing points, Woodward verges on patriotic machismo: "There was a television antenna on top of a small hill in Kabul that had been a favorite target of the Soviets though they had never succeeded in hitting it. The Northern Alliance had also tried and failed. An American jet streaked in and, with one bomb, the antenna was gone. Word spread through the capital: The Americans are going to win, this is over." (p. 312). Wait a minute, am I reading Tom Clancy or an investigative reporter?

Interesting book, but read between the lines & be sure to check out some of Noam Chomsky's or RAWA's writings on Sept. 11th, Afghanistan and the Northern Alliance for a point of view that actually questions the motives and actions of the United States.

The product came as described and is a good alternative view to the Bush spin.

The product came as described and is a good alternative view to the Bush spin.

Couldn't finish it. One writer who's so close to Washington community he's become part of it.

This Bob Woodward's account of behind-the-scene policy making process is nothing less than a vivid portrait of Bush administration's power constellation. As is always described in media circuit, Cheney is the mastermind of American bullish undertaking while Powel tries to maintain the US policy in the context of international system. It shows Bush is a leader with a heart of tolerance to open discussion but not to foot-dragging. He puts utmost importance in quick action rather than mulling over potential setbacks.

Woodward tries to keep this book a narrative of events in the circle of the Whitehouse decision making rather than adding his own perspective. Readers can easily figure out each player's role in the process. This book's bottom line: Bush in charge, Rice at the top of coordination, Cheney as a hardliner unilateralist, Powell as an internationalist-minded pure diplomat, Rumsfeld as a stubborn but determined leader of his Department. The reality certainly has many more layers of input attempting to divergent directions of American foreign policy. This setting may not be the perfect, but certainly has a necessary decisiveness. It is readers who draw what is the Woodward's message.

Bush at War is actually the first book written by Bob Woodward that deals with the GWB administration, but the second one I have read (I previously read Plan of Attack). BAW covers the time from September 11, 2001 until early 2002, when the Bush team was celebrating victory in Afghanistan and looking ahead to Iraq. The book follows (obviously) Bush and his inner circle, George Tenet and others in the CIA, and a paramilitary team covertly inserted into Afghanistan soon after 9/11 with the codename "Jawbreaker." Since Plan of Attack is probably one of my all-time favorite books, I had high expectations for BAW. However, these expectations were not met.

Overall, Woodward does a good job of giving a "fly on the wall" inside look at the workings of the administration. It's obvious that he had a high level of access to documents and several of the main characters. As a purely informative book, BAW is a five star slam dunk. But we are not looking for simple facts, that's what newspapers and encyclopedias are for.

My disappointment with BAW stems from Woodward's writing style. Often, I felt like he simply cut-and-pasted elements of meeting reports, etc. into the book and inserted paragraphs to break things up. Some chapters are simply "Bush said this...", "Rumsfeld expressed concern that...", "Franks explained that..." and so on. Sure the content is compelling, but I think that Woodward could use his good judgement and excise some of the more repetitive parts, especially for a book that is 350 pages long. The worst part of it all is that the last 50 pages are an epilogue dealing with Iraq, which seems to last forever. Woodward should have just saved this stuff for Plan of Attack.

If you're looking for a quick, informative read, by all means, buy this book. But if you're expecting compelling drama or a real page-turner, look elsewhere. Buy Plan of Attack instead.

Bob Woodward released "Bush at War" in 2002 before much of the long term results/failures of the "global war on terrorism" had been determined. What is presented is a detailed review of the Bush Administrations development of a vision and strategy to combat a situation the United States was woefully unprepared to fight.

Bob Woodward presents the administration as focused immediately after the 9/11 attacks, striving to balance a strategically sound response and develop a long term strategy against the enemy. The government was mobilized and the world was willing to help. Although Bush's intentions were good, and his plan noble, "Bush at War" presents an administration better suited at raising questions about broad stroke issues, rather than a defined strategy with clear goals.

Tenet and Powell seemed to offer the best advice early on in the development of our response (in my view), but Bush seemed to try to incorporate ideas from everybody in his cabinet which resulted in a disorganized action plan. Bush's impatience with an answer to the attacks sent our country down a path in Afghanistan that relied on luck and "by the seat of our pants" action. Thankfully the first half of the goal was achieved.

I was left feeling better about the Presidents vision after reading this book, but very concerned about the lack of effective strategic leadership in the cabinet. Rumsfeld comes off as a dictator and lunatic. Cheney is hardly mentioned until the end when the Iraq issue begins to gain prominence. Powell was very much on the outside of the inner circle with Rice as the referee. There is not much hope that there was one unified agenda, although the President did his best to try and make the right decisions.

The information is good and fair, but the reading is very dry with too much "..then they did this..." and "...then he said this...". An important book and I look forward to reading part 2 "Plan of Attack"

Woodward writes in a way that is instantly enjoyable. Doesn't get bogged down with dullness and adds a certain flair to his writings and the occasional piece of humour.

Very enjoyable book.

This is the first of Bob Woodward's Bush war books and it is simply title 'Bush at War.' I know that Woodward has been bashed by the right as someone out to get George Bush. I really think that the people that make that accusation have not read these books. It seemed to be rather fair to Bush and his staff, overall. It comes off as, in a way, a documentary on what led the US to go after Afghanistan, the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It goes into the high level meetings...Woodward spent hours interviewing Pres. Bush himself, as well as with Rumsfeld, Powell, Cheney, etc.

There were a couple of things that surprised me and didn't surprise me. First, Bush comes off much sharper than he is actually given credit for. Though I don't always agree with his reasoning, he had a strong voice within his administration and he used it. He would tell them what he wanted and his staff (Rummy, etc.) would get it done.

Second, it was interesting to see how dire it appeared with Afghanistan. The administration was frustrated, little was being accomplished and winter was about to set in...and then all of a sudden, one of the air raids along with the troops (northern alliance, CIA) moving forward, the Taliban went on the run. It seemed to surprise the administration how quickly it changed.

Third, the administration knew what it wanted to do...but you can see that there was little big picture planning going on. Woodward had a great line when he said "The president, untested and untrained in national security, was about to start on the complicated and prolonged road to war without much of a map." As we have seen, this has dogged Bush for years...we come out with guns blaring and not quite sure where to go when we have done something.

Fourth, you can see how alienated Powell was for almost the entire presidency. Neither Rumsfeld nor Cheney seemed to want his input much and the President appeared to be more than ready to listen to those two with Powell often being the scapegoat or the one out on his own little island (even though Rice often tried to bring him back in).

It was a good read. Worth the time and a nice look into an administration.

This book was relevant at the time it came out, if nothing for the fact it helped pump the patriotism and zeal to go to war.

However now, after we know the true facts, the lies, and the totally corrupt and inept administration running this country - this book serves no purpose. I recommend Bob Woodwards new book, "Bush at War Part 2: Denial", where he illustrates in detail how bad this administration has bungled up everything.

Skip this one, it is no longer relevant. The only thing Bush is at war with anymore is his own conscience and moral fabric - which is woefully lacking.

I work for a book summary company. One of the books selected for summary is this book.

When you have the world famous author who made the startling expose on the Watergate scandal and Assistant Managing Editor of Washington Post, write about the eventful hours following the 9/11 attack at the World Trade Center, your expectations are naturally very high. But Woodward lets you down, as this book leans heavily on transcripts of National Security Council meetings and extended interviews including over 4 hours of interview with George Bush, to reveal the layers of decision making process that followed the cataclysmic incident. By providing the details of the close-door meetings amongst the key central players, we do get to size up partially on the personality of those involved. We are privy to the arguments and ideological differences amongst the principal leaders as President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, CIA Director George Tenet, and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, forcefully put their weight and power behind their viewpoints and decisions. We are treated to how the CIA successfully waged an intelligence war against Afghanistan leading to the fall of the Taliban. Beyond that we get precious little in terms of clear opinion on the dynamics of the decision making or the wisdom behind it. A mere reportage of the collection of meetings and interviews are best served in a newspaper, and thus could ideally have found its way into Washington Post. In the publication of a book, we expect a renowned media investigator as Woodward to undertake a more serious study such as on policy matters or the depth of leadership involved or an incisive analysis of personalities and so forth. This is a rather tame book and hardly adds anything of great value, and much less so to the trailblazing work that Woodward is capable of.

Bush at War was the first book that I have read by Bob Woodward. Of course, I am somewhat familiar with Woodward's work and his reputation as one of the greatest living journalists. But, "current events" is not a subject that I normally look for when choosing literature. The idea behind Bush at War intrigued me though. Here we have a presidential administration obviously very fond of secrecy, but they are also willing to grant extensive interviews to Woodward -- one of the reporters that exposed the covert goings-on of another secretive White House. My curiosity was peaked.

The book documents the behind-the-scenes discussions among the members of Bush's war cabinet in the months following the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. It tells the almost day-to-day who, what, where, when and why of the immediate aftermath, planning and strategy for war in Afghanistan, and the political wrangling necessary to make it all work. It is also clear from the beginning that Iraq kept coming back to the table even before there were "boots on the ground" in Afghanistan.

I learned a lot of new information from Bush at War, and it all reinforced what I had already hypothesized about the Bush Administration. Cheney (Vice President) and Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense) are hawks -- almost to the point of being vultures, and Powell (ex Secretary of State) is a man of the world and a statesman. The three of them brought balance to Bush's war cabinet, but the fact that Powell didn't actively seek "face time" with the President (until it was too late) muffled his message under the others' sword rattling.

The author's presentation of Bush at War is a fair and balanced telling. Most of the events are described in the words of the participants, and Woodward lets them all have their own voice. That is presumably why Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Tenet, etc. agreed to talk to this particular reporter about it.

The paperback edition has a bit of an Afterward about the Iraq war. The whole book is well indexed.

Wow. A right wing view of Bush's war efforts with blinders added. Woodward's aim at terrorism is as bad as Bush's. Bush does not deserve to be on any pedestal.

The events of 9/11 lead the US into war. The war on terror is war as I know it. I was too young to remember much of the first conflict in the Middle East. George W. Bush is what I know of a war time president. Images of Bush at ground zero solidified him as great person. His steadfastness since waging war has solidified him as a great war time president.

I feel a book like this is important simply due to the material it covers. Terrorism must be defeated. It is critical for the survival of the world as we know it. Woodward gives a vivid portrait of the White House during the begining of the war. He gives detailed accounts of President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Powell, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Director of Central Intelligence Tenet, and National Security Adviser Rice. A must read.

I am shocked by the hollowness of this effort. Here is a man who has been in the heart of the capital for eons, yet has observed nothing more than the expected comings and goings of the Washington elite? Woodward offers virtually no illuminated perspective on what is perhaps a seminal, pivotal shift in this nation's genetic destiny. We are at a crossroad. A potential soceital divide. Yet we're supposed to take away that "Bush is a pretty okay guy, who manages on the fly?" Please Mr. Woodward. People are dying in the first "unprovoked offensive war" in the history of this great country. "President" is not an "entry level" position, sir. And with all due respect to you being a responsible journalist and author - neither is yours.

It's almost always sad and is certainly always instructive to see living myths die. The Woodward of "All the President's Men" was just such a living myth. Like all myths, the Woodward myth does serve a purpose. In this case, the purpose is highlighting our societal belief that the truth is worth fighting for, that uncovering the truth can make a difference, and that a couple of young guys in cheap suits with the right ideas and a little extra chutzpah can even take on the President of the United States...and win. Of course that Woodward never truly existed and the real Woodward has always had to live under the shadow of the myth that bears his name. Honestly, I don't envy...even if he is proverbially crying all of the way to the bank.

What's scary with a living myth, though, is when people confuse the real person and the myth and assume that the carnal hero actually has the powers that the myth suggests. I recall having a conversation with a good friend not long after Woodward published "Bush at War". Although this friend is among the most innately intelligent people I know, is a strong liberal, and was initially opposed to the war in Iraq, she was still caught in the sway of the Woodward myth and reading "Bush at War" had convinced her that the Bush administration was both cautious and thoughtful in its lead up to the war. When I asked her how she could so easily change her mind, her response was that, "This is Bob Woodward...not some right-wing hack." Although I think it's somewhat unfair to refer to Woodward as either right wing or as a hack. I'm afraid that he is much closer to these two appellations than he is to the myth that has been created around him.

The sooner people realize this, the better it will be for all of us. The real Bob Woodward has been veiled for too long by his mythic aura. It's about time that this veil is lifted for all of us to see the real Woodward. I think the Bob Woodwards of the world, real and mythic, are quite instructive. As time passes, I hope the fictional Woodward can continue to inspire young reporters to tilt at windmills...and I hope the real Bob Woodward story helps us realize that both valor and value are fleeting and that you stop being a champion once you've joined the mill.

As a person who scarcely gets much national news, I was able during the aftermath of 9/11 to hear the national news reports on our response to that tragedy. Woodward, who has access to the most private conversations in Washington and even to the principals themselves, might have given us a book more revealing than this. From cover to cover it is little more than a compilation of tidbits reported in the media. Except for a few names, nicknames and details labels for things, and a few details of what so-and-so thought of so-and-so's inputs at meetings, the entire panorama is fairly well-known even to me, who as I said does not get enough national news. The style lacks pith and punch, whichs makes for quick, almost mindless reading.

The sad truth IMO is Bob Woodward did sell out. The valentine to George W. Bush, err.. book he wrote certainly doesn't qualify as journalism, but is more akin to Kitty Kelly's forays into Biography. It seems that having close unfettered access to decision makers of vast power and wealth compromised any sense of journalistic neutrality (perhaps on an unconscious level). As has been pointed out the book is nothing more than what his 'sources', senior players in the White House, themselves believe and what they want him to write. What's more there is no small amount of sympathy for his subjects.

I'd like to think this compromise of a journalistic duty to inform was not merely for money from this and other books (he's writing one on Bush's second term too) that such high lvl access as personal interaction with Bush yields, nor the prestige. I wouldn't think it is out of feelings of gratitude arising from an internalized notion that he is the modern Herodotus chronicling a superpower after a horrible attack or even the empowering rush of being an insider on the world stage that led to this. I would like to think that the cause of the metamorphosis is of unknown origins even to Mr. Woodward himself, rather than a calculated exchange his of journalistic legitimacy for the hard coin of access. For the journalist who broke Watergate to have become such a softball artist is extremely troubling.

It is much like the shocking sports radio talk show hosts whose vitriol filled rants end at the chance for any sort of access to the athletes that they secretly idolized. The dogged pursuit of truth became for Bob Woodward a grossly sycophantic linguistic exercise.

Perhaps the more complete lesson of Bob Woodward is not merely his history making actions decades ago but also as a warning of what can happen when finally asked to join the stage with the powerful few if only as a bit player.

Well written and my hat's off to Bob Woodward.

After reading this book I discovered how much of a dog-and-pony show it was on capital hill following 9/11. I don't know how they pulled it off. This book gave an insite into each individual member of the Bush cabinate. The strife and conflict that was slowing the decision process. It could have been worse, but thankfully it wasn't.

From start to finish, this non-fiction page-turner reads like a novel. A wonderful read that proves--much to the dismay of his detractors--that President Bush is indeed a very smart man. He has proven that he's smart enough to surround himself with brilliant people, listen to their wise counsel, and then act with force and foresight. Additionally, Woodward performs a useful public service as he sheds light on the President's human side. The decision as to how to respond to attacks such as the ones we suffered on 9/11 (which by the way followed dozens of other such attacks over the past few decades) is vexing, but Mr. Bush has shown himself to be up to the task. Hats off to Mr. Woodward for this important record.