|
He advised George W. He bowed to the judgment of others and then made the mistake of defending the direction they took him. Unfortunately, their advice was too often ignored or overruled. Nor does it excuse him. One wonders if Woodward will write a Part IV of his series. Undoubtedly, many others will write their own versions. Chaney appears as a mysterious figure who wielded great power until late in Bush's second term. This changed after she became Secretary of State and she served the country well in that role despite whatever baggage she may have been carrying from Bush's first term.Two other players are mentioned throughout the book but their influence on the President is unclear.
Bush during the campaign for his first term. W. The arguments have gone from whether or not to withdraw troops to whether or not to prosecute some of the people involved in the conduct of "the war on terror."Like Bob Woodward's former books on Bush and the war, this makes excellent reading. The second person is Prince Bandar bin Sultan, longtime Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States and a longtime friend of the Bush family. The former President, George H. As National Security Advisor to the President, she wielded considerable additional power.
He seemed to lose that grip on things when "Scooter" Libby, his second in command, was indicted in the CIA leak case. In fact, people are so familiar with the names of those players that I am going to dispense with their first names.Rumsfeld and the officers who served as Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs during the Bush administration come across as misleading the President, obstructing any efforts to change the direction Rumsfeld took the Pentagon, and failing to admit mistakes made. Those with well-publicized names do not come off very well. How readers see this book will be greatly influenced by the viewpoint they bring to the table.That said, unless you are firmly set far to one side or the other of the subject, this book will surprise you. How quickly history moves sometimes. In fact, she was such a key player that it spread her energies pretty thin while also threatening to compromise her role of palace guard. When released, it was good reading on current events. Already, the war in Iraq is quickly fading from the front pages.
Admittedly, you won't find many "good guys" in this story and unless you have been a student of the war, you may not recognize the names of those cast in the most favorable light. As I write this review, George W. She understood the workings of the government and the roles she played better than most. Everyone has a different take on what went right and what went wrong regarding Iraq. If you expect it to "bash Bush," it does not. Both then and throughout the two terms of the second Bush administration, Bandar provided the President insight into the Arab world, as well as Saudi policy.There are a multitude of other players from the Administration, the Pentagon, Iraq, Congress, and from outside of government.
New revelations about the Bush administration and the Iraq war are surfacing at an ever increasing rate. Bush has been out of office just past one hundred days. He fails only occasionally as the story shifts between locations, times, and centers of power. She was a loyal lieutenant to the President and during his first term was both an access point and conduit by which to reach the President. It is, of course, only a beginning of that history.
Bush, deliberately avoided having undue influence or conflict with his son. Woodward is adept at trying to keep the players straight. However, Rice's knowledge and skill stand out. Now, it is still that but is rapidly becoming good history as well. Powell and his close associate Richard Armitage are credited with having a clearer vision of world affairs than other advisors to the President. Overall, this is an excellent journalistic effort.
It is as free from bias as anyone could write in the circumstances. He was a loyal supporter as a father, but not an advisor. In the case of Powell, he acquiesced too easily in decisions that he sincerely doubted.Anyone questioning the intelligence of the people who make it into the top echelons in our government is making a mistake. Bush comes across as ill prepared for the job of leading. Others in the administration - Rove and Wolfowitz for example - had their own agendas which Bush and Chaney often followed without anyone acting as a check on their influence.Rice and Powell are special cases that come across with both high marks and serious negatives.
Tragic bit of history. This is a must read for anyone interested in our current state of affairs.
When coupled with a secretary of defense who insisted on making all important decisions himself, and who dismissed or ridiculed any non-conforming points of view, the nation was at high risk that the disaster would take a military form. It is often said that watching laws and sausage being made often causes the viewer to lose his appetite for either. The most recent addition to our understanding of our difficulties in Iraq, State of Denial by Watergate reporter Bob Woodward deals less with military insights and operations than with the conflicts and tensions among the personalities involved. Confronting the tragedy of the September 11th attacks, the new Bush Administration moved quickly and resolutely to the offensive, determined to confront and destroy those whose hatred of the West led them to murder innocents on American soil.Old Scores to SettleThough blessed with an abundance of technical, military, and human resources--including a presidential father with a gift for diplomacy and a secretary of state who was respected and admired throughout the world--the Bush Administration soon turned, as if by instinct, toward an old enemy. Unfortunately, the view it gives of our government is not for the faint of heart. The Roots of Our ProblemsCertainly, no one can waste much sympathy on the old Iraqi dictator. But Woodward's account suggests that by creating a system which punished the expression of contrary points of view, and equated misgivings with disloyalty, the Bush Administration was setting itself up for a disaster at some point during its term of office.
The book is at its best when unraveling the inner workings of governmental insiders. Its strength lies in Woodward's tenacity as an interviewer, and his unparalleled access to official Washington.
And once the dust had settled, and we had dispatched the Taliban from Afghanistan, eyes turned to settle scores with Saddam, whose sympathies were clearly with those who wish this country harm. It contains little military history or analysis, and struggles to place the events in their historical context.
Though lacking the tactical insights that make books such as Cobra II and Fiasco such alarming works, Woodward's gifts as an interviewer lets him paint a portrait of an Administration largely trapped by its rhetoric, and held prisoner to its own unchallenged assumptions. Add what appears to be a world view based on personal or political loyalty rather than objective fact, and a defense secretary unwilling to consider the suggestion that Iraq could become another Vietnam, and the result is an unending chain of bad decisions, culminating in our current predicament.State of Denial will not add to the reader's understanding of what has gone wrong in Iraq from a military standpoint.
But watching our government setting its course for Iraq is like watching a fatal crash in slow motion: we are helpless to change things, even if we cannot keep from watching in morbid fascination. Iraq, though it had not participated in the 9/11 attacks, was still unfinished business as far as some top-level aides and policy makers in the Administration were concerned.
Saddam was a brutal ruler, inflicting death and torture on his enemies and heading a regime that survived by brute force and fear.
It illustrates how President Bush created a "happy news only" atmosphere and how Rumsfeld refused to heed the advice of the military leadership. You're just waiting for something to go horribly wrong.I know many people may be put off by the size of this book, but I assure you it is a book every American with a concern towards the Iraq War should read. Reading this book is like watching a group of preschoolers playing around with a toy, not realizing its a grenade.
The book is long but thorough. The infighting is stunning and the denial of facts mind boggling.The book in large part follows Donald Rumsfeld, as he was the key player in this war. This chronicle is a must read for anyone who wants to know how the US ended up in the Iraq War and how it became a disaster.
His refusal to play ball with other agencies and accept differing opinions is incomprehensible. And it also demonstrates that the only solution our leaders could think of when things weren't going right was to send study group after study group over to Iraq to find out how to fix it.and then change absolutely nothing.Eye-opening and maddening. In Woodward's traditional style, it is easy to read.
But the content of the book grows more and more frustrating as you witness the leaders of our government fumble around with such monumental decisions.
The commentary seems to be politically neutral and does not stray far from the facts. Woodward clearly demonstrates why he is a Pulitzer Prize winner in this informative and engaging look into the inner workings of government. It makes you wonder how the system works at all.
|
