Without a doubt this book should be required reading for every American. In clear and precise detail Bob Woodward lays out how the Bush administration mislead this country into a war with Iraq. And that isn't even the only provocative detail in this astounding book. It's filled with astonishing details about the way the Bush administration operated during the run up to the war and during the war. An important book that every American NEEDS to read.

Woodward writes a scathing expose of Don Rumsfeld and the mistakes that led us to war. I found myself smiling wryly time and again, shaking my head that there could be so much incompetence in a group of supposed professionals. Again, makes one wonder about the true reasons for going to war in Iraq.

What few good points are made over and over ad nauseum. Eventually one determines this work is ideologically based and lacking in serious academic underpinnings. This work supported properly in it's foundation would be an interesting read. Nice try Steyn.

I think the American nation needs this good, thought-provoking book. It gives us insight as to why it is so important to vote and to research the party and the officials we are voting for. "State of Denial" documents the Bush administration's Iraq debacle from the beginning. It is an Eye-Opener (well, at least for me, that is). I have always been pro-republican, but this well researched book proves beyond any doubt that Bush is unfit to lead the nation as he lacks the necessary experience and skills for that job. All in all it is a good enlightening book that should be read by everyone. I also recommend The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream

This book is pretty much what I expected from the title. Bob Woodward makes it seem like he was in the room with the participants, although what he is writing is his own impression of interviews. OK, the guy does have access to a large number of high level politicians and others in government. Any liberal that already hates the Bush Cabal and reads this book is going to say, "great, four stars, I told you so, just what I thought" because the book is page after page of criticism of just about everyone in the administration. Those more conservative who may have voted for Bush will wonder how the hell things got so out of hand if what he writes is true. Woodward may well be correct in his assessment of the situation, but down to writing about actual conversations that took place between people? No, I don't think so. This book reminds me of "Dereliction of Duty" by H.R. McMaster, an Army West Point Major (now Colonel), about how McNamara took over the planning for the Viet Nam War and refused to let the Joint Chiefs of Staff offer advice to President Johnson. Woodward eerily seems to be saying some of the same things, in that Rumsfeld did just about the same thing as McNamara. He personally picked a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs that would back up his decisions, many of which with hindsight appear to be wrong, and while other heads of the services may have disagreed, those views were not presented to Bush. I am an avid reader of history and especially about the wars that the US has been involved. When a glaring mistake is made about a trivial matter many will say, never mind, it really doesn't matter. YES it does! If Woodward can't get his facts straight about something trivial, and the editor doesn't catch it, then what else has been missed or exaggerated? On page 115 Woodward writes about General Abizaid "whose combat experience in Grenada was dramatized in the 1986 Clint Eastwood movie "Heartbreak Ridge. . . " Well, first the film dramatized a ridge in Korea that had to be taken as it over looked Chinese forces and was heavily defended and rigged with tunnels and thus UN casualties were very high in the battle. It was waged while peace talks were going on and thus controversial. Eastwood moved the scene up to the Viet Nam war so as to show the futility of that conflict in his movie. I know this because I am a Korean War era Army veteran! This may not mean much to the average reader but it sure did to me. This is the point I gave up on the book as fact, and started reading it as opinion, and that is what it is, opinion based on interviews. So read it if you are those who want information to further criticize the Bush administration, or even if you voted for Bush and want to have a better idea of what seems to have happened and why the war has gone on so long. Obviously, a large number of mistakes have been made, and it may be that Rumsfeld took detail planning and made decisions over the advice of the JCS about the Iraq war like MacNamara did with the Viet Nam war. They both appear to have excluded the advice of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who by law report to the President and are supposed to give advice directly. Rumsfeld, who by his choice of Myers, got him to agree, despite a great deal of anguish by General Myers, if you believe the book. McMaster, had the value of time to research his book from notes of all the meetings and participants because it has been over 40 years. I think it is too soon to judge the war from a historical basis as not enough time has elapsed, and we are still involved. This is not to say that we shouldn't get out or stay in, just we don't know yet the outcome. And for the record I want us OUT ASAP. Let's just hope the sacrifice was worth it in lives and money spent. I better understand those who are so intently against it, so at least I learned something from reading the book.

Bob Woodward did a superb job in his narrative of 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan in "Bush at War", and he brings that same quality of in depth journalism to the Iraq war here in "State of Denial". His ability to bring to the reader an inside look at the decision making and execution process of the Bush administration is spectacular. I hope that he is devoting his considerable talents towards another book that takes into account what has transpired in Iraq since this last book was published, particularly the advances in bringing the Sunnis to the table in al Anbar.

Clearly Woodward can't write fast enough to explain the US debacle in Iraq. Woodward has the sources. Sadly, the facts of misgovernment read like pulp fiction.

Rumsfeld tried to wrest control of the Defense Department from the military. In June, 2001, George Tenant and Cofer Black reported to Condi Rice bin Laden intercepts. They felt the brush-off.

Army Major General 'Spider' Marks was to be top intelligence officer of US forces in Iraq. He found there was almost no ground intelligence. Rotkoff became second on the intelligence staff. Marks and Rotkoff were conditioned to expect WMDs.

The off-year election, 2002, gave Bush the sense of being a popularly elected president. Jay Garner was the first person given postwar responsibility for Iraq. Marks felt he didn't have sufficient time to investigate and Garner felt he didn't have sufficient time to plan. A month before the war, Garner's group identified security as the greatest postwar problem. Someone from the State Department's Future of Iraq Study was drafted and later removed from the Garner group.

Problems in Iraq were widespread and deep. Looting was intense. On April 24th, 2003, Garner was told about the appointment of Bremer. With the coming of Bremer, the US had unemployed soldiers and Baathists as enemies.

After the military failed to find the WMDs, David Kay was drafted to go on the hunt. The president's principal advisors did not speak to each other. For Iraq, Rumsfeld hoped that someone like Karzai, (Afghanistan), would emerge. In January 2004 Kay announced that the WMD had not been found and may not have existed. Intelligence analysts had failed to understand just how deteriorated and corrupted Saddam's regime had become.

Bremer and Sanchez failed to communicate. General Sanchez had been placed in a difficult position. An advisor to the NSC believed the real problem in Iraq was that there weren't enough US troops. Detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib was reported in THE NEW YORKER and on the SIXTY MINUTES television program. The failure of the intelligence services on the WMD issue was studied by a commission headed by Silberman and Robb.

After CPA left, the State Department was to be in charge of the Iraq mission via John Negroponte. What the US soldiers in Iraq most needed were translators. After the re-election of President Bush, the assault on Fallujah took place. Execution and implementation in Iraq were mishandled. The training of the Iraqi army was a disaster. By 2005 there were no strategic thinkers in Iraq and the leaders were divorced from reality.

Notes on sources and the index form the conclusion to this excellent book.

This appears to be very well researched. Obviously, Woodward had access to many
high level, knowledgeable people. In previous books, Woodward seemed almost
sycophantic about Bush, but in "State of Denial" his vision is clear and we see
Bush unvarnished.

There is great information about the major players in Bush's administration. In fact,
I turn to the excellent index constantly to refer to sections on key players, such as the generals
involved in Iraq, cabinet officers and others who have influence with the President.

I have given copies of the book to friends and believe "State of Denial" is a great
resource which will be invaluable to historians.

State of Denial is not a book about the Iraq war. It is a book about the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war. Woodward uses his legendary though diminished access to the presidency to paint a picture of the Whitehouse that was disorganized, divided, and ultimately dysfunctional. Rather than pursue a general thesis condemning the administration, Woodward takes a chronological narrative style focusing on characters and interactions which serves to provide an interesting angle.

This focus allows for true gems to come out, like the trepidations of W's family or Whitehouse humor such as this example this conversation between Bush and Jay Garner:

On the way out, Bush slapped Garner on the back.
"Hey wanna do Iran"
"Sir, the boys and I talked wand we want to hold out for Cuba. We think the rum and cigars are a little better, and the women are a little prettier"
Bush laughed "You got it, you got Cuba" Pg. 224

Woodward also tries to let the story tell itself as much as possible. The few examples of author commentary usually come refuting statements made by Rumsfield, and only in the form of different interviewees that disagreed. This refrain is a refreshing step back from authors with blatant agendas.

The style can be frustrating at times as this book does not attempt provide a complete picture of the Iraq war. Woodward only talks about key figures such as Nuri al Maliki only through the lenses of those like Condollezza Rice, and key events such as Abu-Gharib or Samarra receive no more than a paragraph of coverage. In the end, the quality of the work on the administration more than outweighs the books shortcomings, and should be on the must read list of anybody looking to further understand the administration or the war in Iraq.

Yes, there are lots of problems with the war in Iraq. Yes, it has been mishandled, but the question for me is if this war is wrongly ran or is it fundamentally wrong?
The book tends to argue that we had no business in Iraq, and the situation there is a mess because we should not be there in the first place.
Let's have a historical perspective: We pacified and democratized Germany, and we kept troops there for 60 years. No one is arguing with that. We also pacified and democratized Japan, and we kept troops there for 60 years also no one is arguing with that. We saved S Korea from communism and made it the 9th largest world economy, in contrast with their Northern brothers that are starving to death... We saved Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from Sadam, no one is arguing with that either.
Now is Iraq. Five years and 3000 casualties later we are all whining and begging our leaders to quit with our tail between our legs. What if FD Roosevelt quit after a couple of years of fighting Germany and Japan? What if Harry Truman and General McArthur, just said "This Korean winter is colder than we thought, lets just pack up and go"? Well, they didn't, and they had to send thousands and thousands of young Americans to the ultimate sacrifice.
Today FDR is know as the savior of civilization and democracy and General McArthur has a 50 foot statue in the port of Incheon, Korea as the saviour of this nation. (well, half of this Nation)
But Iraq? Let's just quit... great leader Ahmadinejad and his friends can take it over...
Oh... where have all he cowboys gone?

While looking for this book, I stumbled on "The World Without US" - a documentary similar in topic. After checking out the trailer in the reviews, I got the DVD and the film was amazing. It takes the premise of this book a step farther by asking, what would happen should the US withdraw its military completely from the world? I think that the film makers did the question justice by traveling around the world and interviewing amazing people with amazing points of view. Answering a hypothetical question is hard, for any author and filmmaker, however this movie did the job, weather you agree with the answer or not. Check it out also.
The World Without US - With Niall Ferguson

Whichever theories you subscribe too, I believe this book clearly offers insight into the state of what drives the war in Iraq, but at the same time offers the reason the Establishment at the hands of George W. Bush needed to magnify the "War On Terror" to the benefit of the defense industry and those who make a variety of monitoring and/or surveillance.

Prior to 9-11-2001 there is no question that US airports were very poorly secured in general and that it took a major catastrophe such 9-11 to bring them up to the security standards of the rest of the world.

No matter which spin you believe, this book outlines them all.

This book was a gift to my husband. He says that it is very thorough investigative reporting. He did not want to put it down even to eat dinner.

As of the end of 2007 this book does not have much that has not been already said a thousand times before. However, it does have some exclusive information that few others have been able to obtain. Nearly all of that involves Woodward's interviews with the main players in the drama (Bush and Rumsfield in particular) as well as many other ancillary players. Few, if any, other writers on the war (journalists, political commentators or academics) have had this wide access to the decision makers. The results of these interviews alone are worth reading the book for (and hence the four star rating). These interviews give excellent insights into the motivation, personalities and goals of the relevant "players". It would have been nice if the full transcripts of these interviews would have been available in an appendix.

As of the end of 2007 this book does not have much that has not been already said a thousand times before. However, it does have some exclusive information that few others have been able to obtain. Nearly all of that involves Woodward's interviews with the main players in the drama (Bush and Rumsfield in particular) as well as many other ancillary players. Few, if any, other writers on the war (journalists, political commentators or academics) have had this wide access to the decision makers. The results of these interviews alone are worth reading the book for.

A true American is a Caucasian or African-American Christian that loves his country. That's all there is to it.

America was discovered by Caucasian Christians and settled as a land where they could practice Protestantism freely. The Catholic church had grown corrupt and was persecuting other Christians for not following their newly-proclaimed dogma.

Americans soon found they had neighbors whom they mistakenly yclept Indians, whom they shared the truth of Christ with. The two got along well, but began to make deals with each other and change their minds afterward which led them to get into squabbles. America generously agreed to give certain portions of America to the Indians and they happily accepted.

Over in Africa, the Arabs were capturing African-Americans and enslaving them. America took up a collection and bought all the slaves from the Arab invaders, with the agreement that the African-Americans work for them to pay off the debt. The African-Americans kindly accepted. The Americans then shared the truth of Christ with their new African-American friends.

The World saw how free and happy America was and sought to destroy it. Britain, an evil empire that encompassed half the world decided to invade. Even though America was greatly out-numbered, God gave her the power to fight off the evil invaders and keep America the bastion of freedom it was.

When England was in rubble, the Americans got together and wrote down how their government worked so their descendants would never forget how it was done. They called it the Constitution. It said that Americans would be free to say anything they wanted, and practice any form of Christianity they wanted. They were kind enough to forgive the Catholic church for what it did and allowed people to be Catholic if they wanted as well. As well as a myriad of other wonderful things, it also stated that Americans' should be allowed to carry firearms.

Even though they would have been kicked out of the original America, there has arisen a new "false-American" that wants to destroy the country that has given him everything. They call themselves liberals, or sometimes progressives. They want to expand the Indians' territory to cover most if not all of America's territory, and they tell the African-Americans lies about how they were slaves. They burn American flags and claim the first Americans were devil worshippers. They also want to destroy the constitution because it gives people the freedom of religion and the right to bear firearms.

Yes, there is such as thing as true Americans, and unfortunately false Americans as well. The difference is obvious: one loves his country and wants to keep it like the original Americans had it, the other hates it and wants to destroy it.

This is a disgusting book -- you will be digusted with your government when you find out how it works. While you can never be certain one author gives you an unbiased viewpoint, Woodward cites so many sources over an extended time that it is hard to deny what he reports. Plus, it would seem to match the facts as we know them today. This is a very readable book and enjoyable in the sense you learn more about the inside workings of the Bush administration. You will learn to despise Donald Rumsfield (if you don't already) and sympathize with Colin Powell. Rumsfield is to the Bush administration what Judah Benjamin was to the Lincoln administration (both were Secretaries of War/Defense) while Powell may be closer to the Benjamin Franklin mold (sans kite). Woodward is never so accurate as he is on page 252 when he quotes Newt Gingrich saying "The most dangerous thing in the world is a confident, smart person with the wrong model because they (sic) have enormous enthusiasm in pursing the wrong model. Bremer arrives thinking he was MacArthur in Japan and that we should have an American-centric system." While this quote is about the U.S. head in Iraq, Paul Bremer, the quote fits Bush to a "W" except for the word "smart." You owe it to yourself to read this book to learn how we slid into the morass that is now Iraq.

There is a reason our country is such a mess and this book will give you all the true facts

From a political perspective, reading this book is like watching a horrific car wreck happening at slow motion. The man at the wheel happens to be one George W. Bush. I never believed in him, but those that still do should read this tome with an open mind and come to their own conclusions. Woodward's sources and methods are objective and credible, and the only real criticism I have of the book is that it came out far too late to make any difference.

As are all of Woodwards's books this one is well written and informative. I enjoy all his books and I have no problem keeping up with the events and my interest stays peaked. I'm sure you'll enjoy reading this book too. I would have given five stars but I just feel all books are too high priced!

Woodard evokes honestly in all his writings. We can hear the credibilty of his words. Very thought provoking and this should raise many subsequent questions about how one in Washington power uses facts or fails to use people and facts.