What do you think?
Rate this book
Bush at War #1
Bush at War
Award-winning author and journalist Bob Woodward turns his attention to the presidency of George W. Bush. Before the acts of terrorism on 11 September, George W. Bush's presidency had been beset by numerous problems. Not only was it in many peoples eyes invalid, very few people took him seriously as a world statesman. Then following one violent mindless act of terrorism, George W. Bush became a president that his country could rely on, one they felt they could trust to lead them through these difficult times. And the world saw a man who was decisive and resolute, a president who was seemingly determined to route out the people who had carried out the heinous acts. But one year after the attacks how has the 44th President of the United States fared? And what were the actual behind the scenes discussions that took place whilst the country was rocked by the crisis? Bob Woodward has been shadowing the President since those fateful events, he was allowed unprecedented access to closed-door meetings and briefings and this masterful book is a look at what really happened.
416 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 2002
186 people are currently reading
3550 people want to read
About the author
Bob Woodward
107 books3,219 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.
Robert "Bob" Upshur Woodward is an assistant managing editor of The Washington Post. While an investigative reporter for that newspaper, Woodward, working with fellow reporter Carl Bernstein, helped uncover the Watergate scandal that led to U.S. President Richard Nixon's resignation. Woodward has written 12 best-selling non-fiction books and has twice contributed reporting to efforts that collectively earned the Post and its National Reporting staff a Pulitzer Prize.
Robert "Bob" Upshur Woodward is an assistant managing editor of The Washington Post. While an investigative reporter for that newspaper, Woodward, working with fellow reporter Carl Bernstein, helped uncover the Watergate scandal that led to U.S. President Richard Nixon's resignation. Woodward has written 12 best-selling non-fiction books and has twice contributed reporting to efforts that collectively earned the Post and its National Reporting staff a Pulitzer Prize.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 247 reviews
May 4, 2025
The Man sees what he wants to see,
And disregards the rest.
Simon & Garfunkel, The Boxer.
George W. Bush was itching for a fight, we all thought, after the horror of 9/11.
Many cringed at invading Iraq and Afghanistan, and I and quite a few of my friends were among them. The Man sees what he wants to see. While Woodward caves in here to Bush and says the President didn't actually disregard the rest, we've got to wonder.
To us Canadians Hell is murky, it's that simple. Or is it?
No!
It isn't and wasn't simple.
But 'Stormin' Norman' had been as enthusiastic as Doctor Strangelove was initially, too, alas...
This book purports to be behind-closed-doors factual, but time will tell if the flies on the wall eventually have their say. Colin Powell, for instance (may he rest in peace) admitted myopic mistakes before going to his reward.
So who's to say? At nearly 74, I'm afraid I see things much less clearly now. I'm losing my emphases and superlatives. What a mess.
Well, was George W. Bush right to react aggressively, being then a youngish man?
He had to do Something! you may say. Maybe you’re right…
But Hell is indeed murky. And it is eternal. But gentrification and earthly powers won't cut the mustard with the devil.
There are no easy answers, though back then the world thought differently.
Double, double
Toil and Trouble...
And we have a big sad lot of that on our hands" now, friends.
Still, maybe - again - Bush was right…
And recent horror tales from out of Ukraine are proving that sometimes -
“Desperate times require desperate measures?”
No, I think Theodore Roosevelt said it best...
Just "speak softly" but "carry a big stick!"
And disregards the rest.
Simon & Garfunkel, The Boxer.
George W. Bush was itching for a fight, we all thought, after the horror of 9/11.
Many cringed at invading Iraq and Afghanistan, and I and quite a few of my friends were among them. The Man sees what he wants to see. While Woodward caves in here to Bush and says the President didn't actually disregard the rest, we've got to wonder.
To us Canadians Hell is murky, it's that simple. Or is it?
No!
It isn't and wasn't simple.
But 'Stormin' Norman' had been as enthusiastic as Doctor Strangelove was initially, too, alas...
This book purports to be behind-closed-doors factual, but time will tell if the flies on the wall eventually have their say. Colin Powell, for instance (may he rest in peace) admitted myopic mistakes before going to his reward.
So who's to say? At nearly 74, I'm afraid I see things much less clearly now. I'm losing my emphases and superlatives. What a mess.
Well, was George W. Bush right to react aggressively, being then a youngish man?
He had to do Something! you may say. Maybe you’re right…
But Hell is indeed murky. And it is eternal. But gentrification and earthly powers won't cut the mustard with the devil.
There are no easy answers, though back then the world thought differently.
Double, double
Toil and Trouble...
And we have a big sad lot of that on our hands" now, friends.
Still, maybe - again - Bush was right…
And recent horror tales from out of Ukraine are proving that sometimes -
“Desperate times require desperate measures?”
No, I think Theodore Roosevelt said it best...
Just "speak softly" but "carry a big stick!"
March 9, 2013
The more I read Bob Woodward himself and the more I read about him, the more fishy I think he is. Having started his career in naval intelligence and professionally associated with Alexander Haig, Woodward went on to a meteoric rise through the newspaper industry to land in the right place and the right time to contribute to the unseating of Richard Nixon. The right place was The Washington Post, an occasional asset of the CIA. The right time was after Nixon had earned the ire of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for circumventing them in basing decisions and in the secret negotiations with Peoples' China.
Ever the insider, Woodward churns these instant histories out every few months, their contents typified by extraordinary intimacy with the very principals he represents. Although the various assistants he cites may actually write these books, he gets the interviews and the presumed scoops which sell the copy. One wonders at such associations and at the compromises with truth that must be made to maintain such access.
Ever the insider, Woodward churns these instant histories out every few months, their contents typified by extraordinary intimacy with the very principals he represents. Although the various assistants he cites may actually write these books, he gets the interviews and the presumed scoops which sell the copy. One wonders at such associations and at the compromises with truth that must be made to maintain such access.
March 22, 2022
About the response on Nineleven and the war in Afghanistan. Based on reports from the National Security Council and extensive interviews with all key players
Read
September 26, 2007Will go down in history as one of the flimsiest pieces of propagandist bullshit written by a pathetic sycophant of a writer....who just years later would turn on the administration....Everyone (outside of the early street protesters in my beloved San Francisco) was watching Powell's videos thinking they saw something and admiring Rumsfeld on how tough and handsome he was....pathetic, disgusting, cowardly and horrifying period. Now everyone is a Bush critic but I remember the cowards then.
September 26, 2016
On the recent 15th anniversary of 9/11 Politico Magazine published a very good story of President Bush's actions on that day. From the first whispered news in the Florida classroom to his return to the White House that night, the article gave the reader the sense of what it was like aboard Air Force One with so little information at hand. The Politico piece spurred my interest in what happened in the days and months following September 11. Bob Woodward's Bush At War provides a closely observed narrative of the discussions and actions, including disagreements, among the president's national security team. The book is essentially focused on the Afghanistan mission and deals with Iraq mostly in an appendix. Yet the reader can sense the Iraq problem looming in the background. Woodward admirably uses the discussion to show how the agenda moved from a horror at the idea of nation-building to reluctantly embracing it as a consequence of deposing Saddam.
I wanted to read about this point of our history as it seems that the events of the recent past, events I followed closely via newspapers, magazines, television and the net are now less settled in my mind. Shall we discuss the beginning of the Civil War or the diplomatic discussions prior to World War One? I'm right there but events closer in time are harder to nail down. I suppose because they're still being interpreted. A journalist like Woodward is an excellent starting point for stirring one's memory.
I wanted to read about this point of our history as it seems that the events of the recent past, events I followed closely via newspapers, magazines, television and the net are now less settled in my mind. Shall we discuss the beginning of the Civil War or the diplomatic discussions prior to World War One? I'm right there but events closer in time are harder to nail down. I suppose because they're still being interpreted. A journalist like Woodward is an excellent starting point for stirring one's memory.
Read
August 12, 2011What do you want from this book? The answer to this question will decide whether you should read it or enjoy doing so.
If you want an analysis of Bush’s foreign policy up until the invasion of Iraq don’t buy it. Yet, if you want a documentary account of an epoch defining moment and the rise of unilateral foreign policy making then this is a must read.
Woodward attempts to put you in the shoes of the administration during and after 9-11 up until the Iraq War and on the whole he does a good job. You feel like you’re there experiencing seismic shocks to the system and wondering how to react; being guided by, above all, raw emotion as the threat of further attacks become ever more likely.
It paints a rather more complex picture of policy making and the personality and motivations behind President Bush, which is in complete contrast to the once dominant caricature.
If you want an analysis of Bush’s foreign policy up until the invasion of Iraq don’t buy it. Yet, if you want a documentary account of an epoch defining moment and the rise of unilateral foreign policy making then this is a must read.
Woodward attempts to put you in the shoes of the administration during and after 9-11 up until the Iraq War and on the whole he does a good job. You feel like you’re there experiencing seismic shocks to the system and wondering how to react; being guided by, above all, raw emotion as the threat of further attacks become ever more likely.
It paints a rather more complex picture of policy making and the personality and motivations behind President Bush, which is in complete contrast to the once dominant caricature.
August 8, 2008
I don't want to debate, but this book kept me in, and left me, in a state of supreme anger!
June 26, 2008
"Where have I heard this before? Hey,this sounds familiar, too!" Because we HAVE heard it...
Is this his literary agent's best work, yet? Face it, Mr Woodward's book tour ripped across your lawn, flashed from your TV, issued forth from the radio, and came to rest on your kitchen table folded up right next to your morning coffee. Thanks to an expert publicist, this book was excerpted, quoted, and publicly recounted by B.W. in over-the-air interviews. Bob Woodward's face, name, voice, and bio strafed the media until saturation was achieved. This is not quite fiction or non-fict but something like a dramatization of actual events. Despite his unfettered access to W and the relatively brief interval since the actual events, this book is not an objective account of what happened between Sept 11, 2001 and the run-up to an invasion of Iraq. However, there are enough substantiatd facts arranged more or less chronologically. that B.W. is probably accurate in his characterization of the key players and their relationships to each other. However, as events unfold, scene after scene takes on a distinctive hue... a subtle yet subjective tone. My ribs hurt from getting a "Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge" every time Bush says something. Also, Bush is the only character in the book whose "relaxed" style of speaking, grammatical gaffs, colloquialogistics and all, are included.
Is this his literary agent's best work, yet? Face it, Mr Woodward's book tour ripped across your lawn, flashed from your TV, issued forth from the radio, and came to rest on your kitchen table folded up right next to your morning coffee. Thanks to an expert publicist, this book was excerpted, quoted, and publicly recounted by B.W. in over-the-air interviews. Bob Woodward's face, name, voice, and bio strafed the media until saturation was achieved. This is not quite fiction or non-fict but something like a dramatization of actual events. Despite his unfettered access to W and the relatively brief interval since the actual events, this book is not an objective account of what happened between Sept 11, 2001 and the run-up to an invasion of Iraq. However, there are enough substantiatd facts arranged more or less chronologically. that B.W. is probably accurate in his characterization of the key players and their relationships to each other. However, as events unfold, scene after scene takes on a distinctive hue... a subtle yet subjective tone. My ribs hurt from getting a "Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge" every time Bush says something. Also, Bush is the only character in the book whose "relaxed" style of speaking, grammatical gaffs, colloquialogistics and all, are included.
December 30, 2014
In Bush at War, Woodward presents a very insightful insiders' view of the 9/11 and its aftermath as the Bush administration waged war against Afghanistan and debated war against Iraq. Woodward's research and writing style are to be admired. One never gets a hint of his own view of all what he wrote here. Considering the debate that raged during this time, it's good to know that Woodward maintained his neutrality throughout. I have always been intrigued with the insider perspective of this event, and even so, I learned several new things from this book. What is amazing about Woodward is that is he able to inspire the confidence of so many high ranking officials right up to the president, and that they share their deepest insights with him. Perhaps because Woodward is so impartial, he is able to gain the trust of the key participants, whether in this book or in many of his other excellent books. Bush at War will not disappoint the serious student of the conflict. It can get a bit tedious to read this book at times, and a little overwhelming as conversations are reported and shift quickly throughout this book. This distraction aside, Bush at War is a solid book well worth the read.
Read
September 25, 2019Tiresome book about a war launched under false pretenses.
September 14, 2023
An inside account of the White House’s response to 9/11. Incredible access, but have to say it’s not Woodward at his most gripping.
March 29, 2018
.فى خطابه الافتتاحى لفترة رئاسية ثانية، كرر جورج بوش الابن - والشهير بـ«دبليو» - كلمة الحرية ومرادفاتها تسعاً وأربعين مرة، فى خطاب مدته عشرون دقيقة..!
أما إسرائيل فقد أنفقت عقوداً من الزمن لتغيير تعبير «الأراضى المحتلة» - فى وثائق الصراع فى الأمم المتحدة - إلى تعبير «أراض متنازع عليها»..!
«وأن تتخذ كل قبيلة راية ممايزة عن القبائل الأخرى».. كان هذا طلب سير بيرسى كوكس من قبائل الخليج العربى فى أواخر القرن التاسع عشر، والرجل هو السياسى والعسكرى البريطانى صاحب النفوذ الأوسع فى منطقة الخليج العربى والمحيط الهندى منذ عام 1893 ولمدة ثلاثين عاماً..!
أما تعبيرات «جاهلية المجتمع» و«الجيل الربانى» و«الحاكمية» فهى جوهر ما تردد على لسان حسن البنا، وأبوالأعلى المودودى وسيد قطب، وكانت أصخب ما ملأ أثير الفكر الإسلامى على مدار القرن العشرين..! من رايات ترفرف - إذاً - أو من تعبير يصك، ومفهوم يحتكر، تولد أكاذيب كبرى - من رحم حقائق كبرى - لتتفاقم بها مآس وأزمات تذهب ريح أمم وتفنى شعوباً.
لم يكن «دبليو» ومجموعة المحافظين الجدد فى أمريكا.. يحبون فقط التشدق بكلمة الحرية.. ولكن حقيقة كانوا يحاولون احتكار مفهومها ليصبح - ما يقررونه هم هو الحرية - حتى ولو كان عكسها.
ولم يكن «السير كوكس» معنى كثيراً بأن يرى هويات لتلك القبائل.. بقدر ما تحرك الرجل على قاعدة الطائفية أو القبلية أو العصبية لينشئ للصراعات أسبا��ها ومسارها التاريخى.
ويقيناً إسرائيل ليست حريصة على التدقيق اللغوى بقدر ما هى معنية بإخراج القضية من إطار حق اغتصبته منا إلى حق مشاع - فقط - متنازع على حدود ملكيته.
وقطعاً كان البنا والمودودى وقطب يظنون فى تلك الحالة من التعالى بالدين، والعزلة الشعورية، أنهم يخلقون قدراً من النقاء العنصرى الكفيل بالانتصار للدين كما يعتنقونه هم..!
وبمثلها، ولكن من «ثنائيات ضالة» و«مفاضلات مستحيلة» - تجافى المنطق والرشد - تعتنقها وتروجها الشعوب تنشأ بذرة كل تطرف عرفته البشرية أو ستعرفه.. وهو ما تضيع به أوطان ودول.
وإذا كانت الأكاذيب الكبرى هى بذور كل تطرف وسياق كل اغتصاب..فـ«الثنائيات الضالة والمفاضلات المستحيلة» هى ما يحرث وعى الشعوب ليجعله تربة خصبة، قابلة للاستعماء ومن ثم الاستعمار أو الاستبداد.. وللأسف هى ما تأنس له الشعوب وتتعاطاه وتروجه. ولنا من تلك الثنائيات والمفاضلات فى مصر 2014 نصيب وافر وفائض..!
لماذا الحديث عن الشباب وتمكينه.. هو حديث عن صراع جيلى صفرى.. فإما عنصرية عمرية وتمكين شريحة سن ما بالقطيعة مع خبرات من سبقوا واحتقار التراكم.. أو الإبقاء على الأكبر بمعنى كره الإبداع وتأثيمه والتعالى على الجديد..!
أين الحديث عن أهلية الشباب أو الكبار على السواء.. أين الحديث عن المؤهل، شاباً كان أو شيخاً.. رجلاً أو امرأة..؟!
لماذا نقتل الوقت والجهد لنتصارع على إجابة سؤال أى الاحتلالين أفضل، أو أى الاستبدادين أرق؟!
لماذا العلاقة مع الغرب إما انبطاح باسم الصداقة، أو تناطح باسم المؤامرة.. وفى الحالتين إما أننا ننفق مواردنا قرابين على عتبة الصداقة، أو ننزفها فى صراعات حدية لا تؤتى ثماراً..!
لماذا يراد أن نختار بين حب العلم التجريبى وكره الدين.. ونخلق صداماً بين العقل والنقل..؟!
ولماذا دائماً نقرن بين الأصالة والرجعية.. ونصر على أن نجمع بين التدين والخرافة.. ونخلط بين الوطنية والعصبية.. وبين ذكر الفضل لأهله وحمدهم بما لم يفعلوا..؟!
لماذا نتقال أن نكون بشراً.. فيه الخير والشر والجمال والقبح..؟! لماذا بين لحظة وأخرى الناس إما ملائكة أو شياطين..؟!
لماذا نصر أن يكون حال المسؤول فى بلادنا إما نصف إله فوق مراتب البشر لا يسأل عما يفعل وغيره يسألون.. وثناً لا يجوز الاقتراب منه إلا بغية القربى.. أو أن نحيله صنماً يحطم ليل نهار..؟!
ولماذا الخوف من الحرية حتى تأثيم الحلم بها، أو التعسف فى استخدامها حتى الانتحار..؟!
لماذا التنظير المستتر والمستمر أن البشر فى بلادنا فقراء يحتاجون الستر بالاقتصاد.. يحتاجون العيش وكفى.. وأن الحرية والعدل هما رفاهية الشعوب الأرقى..؟!
لماذا استدعاء وعى الناس عندما نطلب منهم العطاء والانتماء.. ولماذا محاربته وتغييبه حين يكون وقت أخذهم وملكيتهم..؟!
لماذا القبول بثنائية الاستعباد، فإما القبول بالاستعباد والانكسار أمام أى سلطة أعلى.. أو ممارسة السادية على كل من هو دونك..؟!
لماذا التواضع فى الحلم، حتى الحلم الذى لا يقبل التواضع فيه..؟!
ولماذا حلم العدل هو إعادة تدوير الظلم، أو المقولة الضالة وهى التساوى فيه..؟!
بماذا نسمى كل ما سبق فينا.. أليس تطرفاً كان ومازال فينا..؟!
ولماذا كل ما سبق فينا.. هل نحن نحب التطرف..؟!
التطرف ليس فقط غلواً فى الدين كما عرفناه وألفناه على مدار أربعين سنة أو أكثر.. التطرف هو أن «نترخص» فى كل ما يلزم أن يجعلنا بشراً مكتملى الإنسانية حتى نقبل بأن نحيا كالكائنات الأولية تأكل وتتنفس وتتكاثر وكفى.. أو أن «نتشدد» فى غير موضع بأننا غير البشر وفوق البشر.
آن لنا أن نكسر طوق التطرف الذى نحياه إذا كنا جادين فى أمر الترحال نحو المستقبل.. وأول شىء نفعله أن نراجع أنفسنا بجدية فى كم من «الثنائيات الضالة والمفاضلات المستحيلة» التى نستدعيها كل يوم ليس فقط للتندر بها.. ولكن لكى نؤسس عليها حركة حياتنا ومؤسساتنا.
أما إسرائيل فقد أنفقت عقوداً من الزمن لتغيير تعبير «الأراضى المحتلة» - فى وثائق الصراع فى الأمم المتحدة - إلى تعبير «أراض متنازع عليها»..!
«وأن تتخذ كل قبيلة راية ممايزة عن القبائل الأخرى».. كان هذا طلب سير بيرسى كوكس من قبائل الخليج العربى فى أواخر القرن التاسع عشر، والرجل هو السياسى والعسكرى البريطانى صاحب النفوذ الأوسع فى منطقة الخليج العربى والمحيط الهندى منذ عام 1893 ولمدة ثلاثين عاماً..!
أما تعبيرات «جاهلية المجتمع» و«الجيل الربانى» و«الحاكمية» فهى جوهر ما تردد على لسان حسن البنا، وأبوالأعلى المودودى وسيد قطب، وكانت أصخب ما ملأ أثير الفكر الإسلامى على مدار القرن العشرين..! من رايات ترفرف - إذاً - أو من تعبير يصك، ومفهوم يحتكر، تولد أكاذيب كبرى - من رحم حقائق كبرى - لتتفاقم بها مآس وأزمات تذهب ريح أمم وتفنى شعوباً.
لم يكن «دبليو» ومجموعة المحافظين الجدد فى أمريكا.. يحبون فقط التشدق بكلمة الحرية.. ولكن حقيقة كانوا يحاولون احتكار مفهومها ليصبح - ما يقررونه هم هو الحرية - حتى ولو كان عكسها.
ولم يكن «السير كوكس» معنى كثيراً بأن يرى هويات لتلك القبائل.. بقدر ما تحرك الرجل على قاعدة الطائفية أو القبلية أو العصبية لينشئ للصراعات أسبا��ها ومسارها التاريخى.
ويقيناً إسرائيل ليست حريصة على التدقيق اللغوى بقدر ما هى معنية بإخراج القضية من إطار حق اغتصبته منا إلى حق مشاع - فقط - متنازع على حدود ملكيته.
وقطعاً كان البنا والمودودى وقطب يظنون فى تلك الحالة من التعالى بالدين، والعزلة الشعورية، أنهم يخلقون قدراً من النقاء العنصرى الكفيل بالانتصار للدين كما يعتنقونه هم..!
وبمثلها، ولكن من «ثنائيات ضالة» و«مفاضلات مستحيلة» - تجافى المنطق والرشد - تعتنقها وتروجها الشعوب تنشأ بذرة كل تطرف عرفته البشرية أو ستعرفه.. وهو ما تضيع به أوطان ودول.
وإذا كانت الأكاذيب الكبرى هى بذور كل تطرف وسياق كل اغتصاب..فـ«الثنائيات الضالة والمفاضلات المستحيلة» هى ما يحرث وعى الشعوب ليجعله تربة خصبة، قابلة للاستعماء ومن ثم الاستعمار أو الاستبداد.. وللأسف هى ما تأنس له الشعوب وتتعاطاه وتروجه. ولنا من تلك الثنائيات والمفاضلات فى مصر 2014 نصيب وافر وفائض..!
لماذا الحديث عن الشباب وتمكينه.. هو حديث عن صراع جيلى صفرى.. فإما عنصرية عمرية وتمكين شريحة سن ما بالقطيعة مع خبرات من سبقوا واحتقار التراكم.. أو الإبقاء على الأكبر بمعنى كره الإبداع وتأثيمه والتعالى على الجديد..!
أين الحديث عن أهلية الشباب أو الكبار على السواء.. أين الحديث عن المؤهل، شاباً كان أو شيخاً.. رجلاً أو امرأة..؟!
لماذا نقتل الوقت والجهد لنتصارع على إجابة سؤال أى الاحتلالين أفضل، أو أى الاستبدادين أرق؟!
لماذا العلاقة مع الغرب إما انبطاح باسم الصداقة، أو تناطح باسم المؤامرة.. وفى الحالتين إما أننا ننفق مواردنا قرابين على عتبة الصداقة، أو ننزفها فى صراعات حدية لا تؤتى ثماراً..!
لماذا يراد أن نختار بين حب العلم التجريبى وكره الدين.. ونخلق صداماً بين العقل والنقل..؟!
ولماذا دائماً نقرن بين الأصالة والرجعية.. ونصر على أن نجمع بين التدين والخرافة.. ونخلط بين الوطنية والعصبية.. وبين ذكر الفضل لأهله وحمدهم بما لم يفعلوا..؟!
لماذا نتقال أن نكون بشراً.. فيه الخير والشر والجمال والقبح..؟! لماذا بين لحظة وأخرى الناس إما ملائكة أو شياطين..؟!
لماذا نصر أن يكون حال المسؤول فى بلادنا إما نصف إله فوق مراتب البشر لا يسأل عما يفعل وغيره يسألون.. وثناً لا يجوز الاقتراب منه إلا بغية القربى.. أو أن نحيله صنماً يحطم ليل نهار..؟!
ولماذا الخوف من الحرية حتى تأثيم الحلم بها، أو التعسف فى استخدامها حتى الانتحار..؟!
لماذا التنظير المستتر والمستمر أن البشر فى بلادنا فقراء يحتاجون الستر بالاقتصاد.. يحتاجون العيش وكفى.. وأن الحرية والعدل هما رفاهية الشعوب الأرقى..؟!
لماذا استدعاء وعى الناس عندما نطلب منهم العطاء والانتماء.. ولماذا محاربته وتغييبه حين يكون وقت أخذهم وملكيتهم..؟!
لماذا القبول بثنائية الاستعباد، فإما القبول بالاستعباد والانكسار أمام أى سلطة أعلى.. أو ممارسة السادية على كل من هو دونك..؟!
لماذا التواضع فى الحلم، حتى الحلم الذى لا يقبل التواضع فيه..؟!
ولماذا حلم العدل هو إعادة تدوير الظلم، أو المقولة الضالة وهى التساوى فيه..؟!
بماذا نسمى كل ما سبق فينا.. أليس تطرفاً كان ومازال فينا..؟!
ولماذا كل ما سبق فينا.. هل نحن نحب التطرف..؟!
التطرف ليس فقط غلواً فى الدين كما عرفناه وألفناه على مدار أربعين سنة أو أكثر.. التطرف هو أن «نترخص» فى كل ما يلزم أن يجعلنا بشراً مكتملى الإنسانية حتى نقبل بأن نحيا كالكائنات الأولية تأكل وتتنفس وتتكاثر وكفى.. أو أن «نتشدد» فى غير موضع بأننا غير البشر وفوق البشر.
آن لنا أن نكسر طوق التطرف الذى نحياه إذا كنا جادين فى أمر الترحال نحو المستقبل.. وأول شىء نفعله أن نراجع أنفسنا بجدية فى كم من «الثنائيات الضالة والمفاضلات المستحيلة» التى نستدعيها كل يوم ليس فقط للتندر بها.. ولكن لكى نؤسس عليها حركة حياتنا ومؤسساتنا.
August 12, 2012
Well, given how thin this book was, and the fact that this book was almost ten years old when I first read it, I wasn't expecting loads of new information here. This reads like a newspaper article.
Woodward's reporting, when not uselessly asinine, fails to scratch the surface of 9-11. He makes sure to note that George Tenent and Richard Armitage met head Pakistani intelligence officials before and after 9-11, but does not note that the same official, Gen. Ahmad, who was visiting the White House from Sept 4th to 13th , sent Mohammed Atta ..... - a story reported in The Times of India, Oct.11, 2001, and confirmed by the FBI. The same guy who paid for 9-11, through his Inter Service Intelligence, is being supported by the White House ( The US government has always supported the ISI, and by extension, the Taliban, during the Soviet/Afghani war of the 80s; and a Los Angeles Times article from May 22, 2001, titled: "Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban", has Colin Powell sending the Taliban $43million.) Woodward doesn't think that's interesting enough to note in his book.
I did find it interesting that Woodward managed to get info on Gary Schroen's CIA team and their mission, even before Schroen's account, First In: An Insider's Account of How the CIA Spearheaded the War on Terror in Afghanistanwas published, though.
It is clear in "Bush At War" that Woodward is more of a reporter than an author; the book's main liability is Woodward's storytelling. The only character that is even partially developed is that of George W. Bush (as one would hope he would be in a book bearing his name in its title). Woodward depicts Bush as a man who understands quite well that he is in command, and as a straight shooter who trusts his gut feeling, makes snap decisions, and is determined that, after the debate has ended, his staff support the decision with unanimity. We also see Bush as a person clearly enraged after the terrorist attacks, as someone who was moved to tears by grieving New Yorkers, and as someone who takes the new war very personally (so much that he kept his own private scorecard of deceased terrorists).
The other primaries, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice, are given, at most, a page or two of exposition which they are then defined by for the rest of the book. This lack of characterization does not make the book very interesting on a humanistic basis, but it is sufficient from a reporter's point of view; i.e. we see that Powell and Rice eventually came to temper Rumsfeld and Cheney's war-mongering, and it was clear where each comes down in the numerous meetings and debates detailed in "Bush At War."
I would classify Woodward's "Bush at War" as closer to a newspaper than a history book. Reading it in 2012, the contents of this book are essentially old hat; no great insight, no stunning revelations that has not already been expounded upon in other books or in other news media. Even the context of the book; a recount of the first 100 days after the 9/11 attacks, lacks depth and critical analysis. There is no mention of the "Project for the New American Century" and how many of the decisions within the first 100 days stem from this critical document.
There is also little mention of what goes on between Congress and the Bush White House. The passage of the Patriot Act gets minimal coverage; even though it was probably the biggest piece of legislation passed in that first 100 days.
No doubt the lines attributed by Mr Woodward to his principle characters bare some relation to a few tape recorded interviews with the Bush administration, infact some my be lifted in full. But to take this as a historical account would be ridiculous, it's a comic book account of events, and a pretty good comic it makes too.
POW! THWACK! BANG! goes the war, no blood, no reflection, and no reality, it's Top Gun for kids. Rumsfeld providing light relief in the role of the grouchy but good grandad figure will have you laughing out loud as he huffs and puffs when pressed to let the French be involved in his saber rattling. And as for Bush himself, well you'll be falling over yourself when you hear his Buck Rogers style declarations, "I'm not a textbook player, I'm a gut player" he postulates, and indeed he his, and besides, those textbooks can take a frustratingly long time to read.
Woodward's reporting, when not uselessly asinine, fails to scratch the surface of 9-11. He makes sure to note that George Tenent and Richard Armitage met head Pakistani intelligence officials before and after 9-11, but does not note that the same official, Gen. Ahmad, who was visiting the White House from Sept 4th to 13th , sent Mohammed Atta ..... - a story reported in The Times of India, Oct.11, 2001, and confirmed by the FBI. The same guy who paid for 9-11, through his Inter Service Intelligence, is being supported by the White House ( The US government has always supported the ISI, and by extension, the Taliban, during the Soviet/Afghani war of the 80s; and a Los Angeles Times article from May 22, 2001, titled: "Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban", has Colin Powell sending the Taliban $43million.) Woodward doesn't think that's interesting enough to note in his book.
I did find it interesting that Woodward managed to get info on Gary Schroen's CIA team and their mission, even before Schroen's account, First In: An Insider's Account of How the CIA Spearheaded the War on Terror in Afghanistanwas published, though.
It is clear in "Bush At War" that Woodward is more of a reporter than an author; the book's main liability is Woodward's storytelling. The only character that is even partially developed is that of George W. Bush (as one would hope he would be in a book bearing his name in its title). Woodward depicts Bush as a man who understands quite well that he is in command, and as a straight shooter who trusts his gut feeling, makes snap decisions, and is determined that, after the debate has ended, his staff support the decision with unanimity. We also see Bush as a person clearly enraged after the terrorist attacks, as someone who was moved to tears by grieving New Yorkers, and as someone who takes the new war very personally (so much that he kept his own private scorecard of deceased terrorists).
The other primaries, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice, are given, at most, a page or two of exposition which they are then defined by for the rest of the book. This lack of characterization does not make the book very interesting on a humanistic basis, but it is sufficient from a reporter's point of view; i.e. we see that Powell and Rice eventually came to temper Rumsfeld and Cheney's war-mongering, and it was clear where each comes down in the numerous meetings and debates detailed in "Bush At War."
I would classify Woodward's "Bush at War" as closer to a newspaper than a history book. Reading it in 2012, the contents of this book are essentially old hat; no great insight, no stunning revelations that has not already been expounded upon in other books or in other news media. Even the context of the book; a recount of the first 100 days after the 9/11 attacks, lacks depth and critical analysis. There is no mention of the "Project for the New American Century" and how many of the decisions within the first 100 days stem from this critical document.
There is also little mention of what goes on between Congress and the Bush White House. The passage of the Patriot Act gets minimal coverage; even though it was probably the biggest piece of legislation passed in that first 100 days.
No doubt the lines attributed by Mr Woodward to his principle characters bare some relation to a few tape recorded interviews with the Bush administration, infact some my be lifted in full. But to take this as a historical account would be ridiculous, it's a comic book account of events, and a pretty good comic it makes too.
POW! THWACK! BANG! goes the war, no blood, no reflection, and no reality, it's Top Gun for kids. Rumsfeld providing light relief in the role of the grouchy but good grandad figure will have you laughing out loud as he huffs and puffs when pressed to let the French be involved in his saber rattling. And as for Bush himself, well you'll be falling over yourself when you hear his Buck Rogers style declarations, "I'm not a textbook player, I'm a gut player" he postulates, and indeed he his, and besides, those textbooks can take a frustratingly long time to read.
August 2, 2015
I thought this book would contain dramatic insight into the Bush presidency, and the decisions made immediately after 911. It was not dramatic, and I only found my interest piqued toward the end of the book. Too much, "Cheney said this," then "Powell said this", and finally "Rice said this. "
It was a crappy situation we got into after 911, lots of good, lots of bad things happened as a result. What would you have done, what would someone else have done? The more I read about Bush, the more I sympathize with his decisions. After repeatedly reading about his desire for world peace and elimination of suffering, I often think he would have been a great peace time President. This book gives you the opportunity to see the struggle President Bush faced when presented with history as we now know it. Overall unbiased, but kinda boring.
It was a crappy situation we got into after 911, lots of good, lots of bad things happened as a result. What would you have done, what would someone else have done? The more I read about Bush, the more I sympathize with his decisions. After repeatedly reading about his desire for world peace and elimination of suffering, I often think he would have been a great peace time President. This book gives you the opportunity to see the struggle President Bush faced when presented with history as we now know it. Overall unbiased, but kinda boring.
November 20, 2010
Reading this book in 2010, I find much of the information familiar. I am surprised by Bush's attempt to focus his team on Afghanistan over Iraq. According to this book, Bush wanted something the team could define as success. Afghanistan seemed anything but an easy success. I was surprised how early on the focus was primarily Afghanistan and that with a different team how different things could have been.
September 13, 2023
After the initial "excitement" of the post 9-11 days, this book was essentially a documentary about every presidential and principals meeting in the first 100 days after the terrorist attack. I found it to be very interesting but did start to blur a bit after a while as most meeting were rehashing previous meetings and so on. Good to read at the anniversary and I will finish the other three books that look at the Bush presidency by Woodward.
September 11, 2020
Bob Woodward is back in the news for perhaps some irresponsible journalism. Looks like in the 18 years between this book and now absolutely nothing has changed.
August 9, 2018
My first bit of research before Mr. Woodward's (first?) book on Trump lands next month. What's done is done and I learned a lot from this about things I wasn't plugged into as an eighth grader. What an experience to read an account of the start of the war then the next day read in the NYT about the same war seventeen years later crossing three presidencies and having no exit strategy.
The abridged audiobook was jarring in places.
The abridged audiobook was jarring in places.
June 17, 2025
Author does a great job highlighting the erratic decision making processes of US leaders immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The timeframe covered in this book, ending in 2002, would age poorly due to lack of scope as the national security council laid the foundations for a 21st century Vietnam level military disaster. Bush would go on to be re-elected to a second term ending in 2008. The title seems to highlight how many Americans saw the war in Afghanistan as a speed bump to be finished in a matter of months to a couple years at most.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 26, 2024
A very well-documented account of both the myriad of National Security Council meetings in the wake of 9/11 and the key players within them. While not the most objective of accounts, the political baggage and motivations that Woodward ascribes to certain individuals is revealing and worthy of consideration.
Read
August 12, 2024First draft of history that lacks much of any context beyond the start of the wars on terror. Insightful only in conjunction with a larger bibliography.
June 20, 2008
This book is about President Dubya and the first 100 days after September 11, 2001. It chronicles the goings-on of the President and his inner circle of advisers: Vice-President Cheney, Secretary of State Powell, Secretary of Defense Rumsfield, CIA Director Tenet, and National Security Adviser Rice. How did they react to 9-11? What was their advice to the President? Did they all agree with each other?
Woodward answers those questions and more, and reveals some interesting tidbits. For example, President Clinton never authorized a hit on bin Laden because he believed it violate the legal ban on assassination. I'm not so sure - I thought that applied only to heads of state. But Woodward makes it pretty obvious that Clinton was never very serious about arresting or killing bin Laden.
On the other hand, neither was Dubya until after 9-11. He knew bin Laden and al-Queda were problems, but it took 9-11 to do something about them. "We're at war," Bush told Cheney on 9-11, then said to his staff, "That's what we're paid for, boys. We're going to take care of this. And when we find out who did this, they're not going to like me as president. Somebody is going to pay." You'd think that al-Queda hitting the U.S.S. Cole and bombing our embassies in Africa would have made Clinton realize this, and Dubya before 9-11, but it didn't.
So he and his staff got together and hashed out the war strategy that unfolded in Afghanistan. It was largely Tenet's plan - he and his aides proposed using the Northern Alliance to take out the Taliban while Special Forces directed air attacks and hunted down bin Laden. The CIA had been paying a group of Afghans to track bin Laden's movements, which they were very good at, and even offered at times to take bin Laden out. But Clinton wouldn't authorize it.
The book's real value lies in describing the relationships between the advisers. Powell rarely agreed with Rumsfield and Cheney - ever the reluctant warrior, he considered overly aggressive and too dismissive of building a coalition. Rumsfield and Tenet sometime clashed, especially when Rumsfield felt that CIA was directing the entire war. Rice was the referee who kept everyone talking and the president informed on the mood and opinions of the advisers. For example, two weeks into the bombing, many were discouraged by the lack of progress in achieving the objective: destroying al-Queda and taking out the Taliban. Rice sensed this and told Dubya, who the next day rallied his troops by telling them he believed in the plan, it was a good plan, and they should stick with. Powell and Tenet were encouraged, because they knew that Dubya was really conveying his belief in them.
Dubya's thinking and management style are also interesting. He handles his staff well, by letting them all speak their piece and constantly challenging them for new ideas and new solutions. He considers himself almost an instigator, spurring argument and discussion. I think he values Powell because he does often disagree with Rumsfield and Cheney, giving Dubya an important second opinion.
Woodward is very good at keeping his own opinion out of this book. This is straight, no-frills reporting - who said what to who and when. Nowhere do we know what the author thought of anything that was going on. It's one of the strong points of the book.
Woodward answers those questions and more, and reveals some interesting tidbits. For example, President Clinton never authorized a hit on bin Laden because he believed it violate the legal ban on assassination. I'm not so sure - I thought that applied only to heads of state. But Woodward makes it pretty obvious that Clinton was never very serious about arresting or killing bin Laden.
On the other hand, neither was Dubya until after 9-11. He knew bin Laden and al-Queda were problems, but it took 9-11 to do something about them. "We're at war," Bush told Cheney on 9-11, then said to his staff, "That's what we're paid for, boys. We're going to take care of this. And when we find out who did this, they're not going to like me as president. Somebody is going to pay." You'd think that al-Queda hitting the U.S.S. Cole and bombing our embassies in Africa would have made Clinton realize this, and Dubya before 9-11, but it didn't.
So he and his staff got together and hashed out the war strategy that unfolded in Afghanistan. It was largely Tenet's plan - he and his aides proposed using the Northern Alliance to take out the Taliban while Special Forces directed air attacks and hunted down bin Laden. The CIA had been paying a group of Afghans to track bin Laden's movements, which they were very good at, and even offered at times to take bin Laden out. But Clinton wouldn't authorize it.
The book's real value lies in describing the relationships between the advisers. Powell rarely agreed with Rumsfield and Cheney - ever the reluctant warrior, he considered overly aggressive and too dismissive of building a coalition. Rumsfield and Tenet sometime clashed, especially when Rumsfield felt that CIA was directing the entire war. Rice was the referee who kept everyone talking and the president informed on the mood and opinions of the advisers. For example, two weeks into the bombing, many were discouraged by the lack of progress in achieving the objective: destroying al-Queda and taking out the Taliban. Rice sensed this and told Dubya, who the next day rallied his troops by telling them he believed in the plan, it was a good plan, and they should stick with. Powell and Tenet were encouraged, because they knew that Dubya was really conveying his belief in them.
Dubya's thinking and management style are also interesting. He handles his staff well, by letting them all speak their piece and constantly challenging them for new ideas and new solutions. He considers himself almost an instigator, spurring argument and discussion. I think he values Powell because he does often disagree with Rumsfield and Cheney, giving Dubya an important second opinion.
Woodward is very good at keeping his own opinion out of this book. This is straight, no-frills reporting - who said what to who and when. Nowhere do we know what the author thought of anything that was going on. It's one of the strong points of the book.
September 17, 2007
I read this book wanting to find proof that George W. Bush was evil. I came to this book, just prior to the 2004 election, longing for a repeat of All the President's Men, and hoping for Bob Woodward to work his magic again and show us the evil warlock behind the curtain. It didn't happen. What Woodward revealed was a man who was deeply hard-headed, convicted and sincere. That he was tragically wrong and that people who worked for him broke laws to further his agenda seems like an idea from another dimension in Bush at War. We don't see an evil administration here. It is an deconstructive irony of the post-Watergate age that the most controversial thing Bob Woodward could reveal about the Bush administration is the mundaneness of tragedy. Woodward seems partially snowed at times, and no doubt has lost his nose for a story since his hungry years. More questions seemed to occur to me reading this book than seemed to occur to Woodward while writing it, and that can't be a good thing for an investigative journalist. But Woodward has earned enough credibility to be given the benefit of doubt. And while he doesn't seem as inquisitive as he did in the early 1970's, he isn't a partisan and he isn't an apologist. The reality is that sometimes conspiracy theories and hunts for "evil" (whether it's a leftist hunt for proof of Bush's evil, or Bush's hunt for "evil") are just wishful thinking. Then, of course, there's the possibility that Woodward is a CIA disinformation agent. It's worth considering, and it would null this entire review.
NC
NC
August 17, 2011
Very interesting. I thought it was fairly non-biased. It frequently felt a little jumbled in terms of flow.
Near the beginning of the book, Woodard made it appear as though the Bush Admin wasn’t prioritizing the UBL/aQ threat adequately. He referenced the sequencing of the National Security Presidential Directives (NSPD) . In particular, the one addressing aQ was number 9. Woodard states, “meaning eight other matters had been formally assessed, vetted, agreed upon and signed off on as policy by the president before al Qaeda.”
What Woodard does not mention, is the level of effort and vetting that goes into the assessment and securing the concurrence of the various stakeholders in matters as serious as NSPDs. The fact that 8 other matters were signed first didn’t necessarily mean al Qaeda was a lesser priority, it more than likely meant that the topic was more serious and thus the process took longer in order to make sure they had it correct.
Near the beginning of the book, Woodard made it appear as though the Bush Admin wasn’t prioritizing the UBL/aQ threat adequately. He referenced the sequencing of the National Security Presidential Directives (NSPD) . In particular, the one addressing aQ was number 9. Woodard states, “meaning eight other matters had been formally assessed, vetted, agreed upon and signed off on as policy by the president before al Qaeda.”
What Woodard does not mention, is the level of effort and vetting that goes into the assessment and securing the concurrence of the various stakeholders in matters as serious as NSPDs. The fact that 8 other matters were signed first didn’t necessarily mean al Qaeda was a lesser priority, it more than likely meant that the topic was more serious and thus the process took longer in order to make sure they had it correct.
August 31, 2009
Bush At War is a insightful and highly readable account of President Bush’s administration following September 11. Bob Woodward does an excellent job at describing the different schools of thought and management style of the key characters in the Bush government (Powell’s disagreement with Rumsfeld over foreign policy being one example). Reading this book really helped me to grasp why the Bush administration acted the way it did and how political ideologies and personal agendas influenced the course of action taken by the United States in response to the September 11 terrorist attack. I really appreciated how the author tried for the most part to show the issues, personalities, and events involved to the reader directly and instead of constantly presenting his own judgments and assumptions (Woodward did do some analysis, but clearly explained how and why he reached his conclusions).
June 9, 2015
Bob Woodward is very good at keeping his opinion out of the narrative. This is quality journalism - but that's all it really is. The book focuses on the 100 days following the September 11 attacks, and the Bush administration's discussions and decision making processes. It's nice to see the process from the inside, but we know how it all turned out, and I don't think Woodward offers anything too insightful, here. Informative, yes. Insightful, no.
August 6, 2023
The good news: exceptional amounts of detail about all that happened during this tumultuous time.
The bad news: excruciating amounts of detail that cause the reader to lose track of the key points and conclusions. After 352 pages, it is still unclear if the author had any thoughts as to what was done right … or wrong.
The bad news: excruciating amounts of detail that cause the reader to lose track of the key points and conclusions. After 352 pages, it is still unclear if the author had any thoughts as to what was done right … or wrong.
November 19, 2008
كتاب مهم و يعتبر مقدمة لسلسلة كتب كتبها بوب ودوارد حول فترة رئاسة بوش الابن
الكتاب يوضح كواليس فترة غزو امريكا لـــ افغانستان تحديدا ً .. كيف تعاملت ادارة بوش مع احداث 11 سبتمبر , ثم حيثيات اتخاذ قرار غزو افغانستان .. الحرب المنسية في غمار حرب بوش الاشهر حيال العراق
الكتاب يوضح كواليس فترة غزو امريكا لـــ افغانستان تحديدا ً .. كيف تعاملت ادارة بوش مع احداث 11 سبتمبر , ثم حيثيات اتخاذ قرار غزو افغانستان .. الحرب المنسية في غمار حرب بوش الاشهر حيال العراق
September 17, 2015
A fast and easy read. I finished it in two nights. It was super interesting and I learned a lot that I don't remember from when 9/11 happened.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 247 reviews