Although mostly seen as an indictment of Bush's policies, Woodward, in an attempt to be objective, demonstrates that the Constitution was followed. Senators and Congress were consulted, informed, and they voted. Likewise, in marshalling a foreign coalition, Bush formed a unified position with other nations, appealed to the U.N., and led the plan to attack in a Constitutional manner with international support. The bad intelligence collection performed by the CIA is explored and was no doubt influenced by the "slam dunk" quote by CIA Director George Tenet. Bush acted as a leader without equivocation and he performed based on the evidence that he had at the time.

Many people can second-guess the President but with the recently declassified papers of the High Value detainees at Gitmo there is no doubt his actions saved many innocent lives. The U.S. bore the brunt of the war on terror in the shedding of American blood and treasure. The MSM wants to indict Bush and his players in the court of popular opinion but Woodward is true to form. He informs readers of what the principals said and leaves their words untarnished and without editorializing. The extreme risk of danger required a President who is decisive and acts on the information available at the time. Iraq, in context, was a much greater threat of harboring WMD or promoting those who would use these weapons against the U.S.

Agenda Setting Media Power

If this book proves one thing, it is the media’s agenda setting power.

No one or nothing can tell Americans what to think. The media, however, can be singularly successful at telling Americans what to think about. If you doubt this, simply take a look at this book’s reviews. Everyone has an opinion and my hunch is that none of those opinions were changed by their reading of the book.

There is no doubt that Woodward is a gifted reporter. Not only does he possess access to the key players, but also the ability to gain their confidence. Sources talk to Woodward. Once he garners the sources recollections of what happened, he relates to the reader in a clear and concise fashion.

At a time when we are being asked to place our children in harm's way, in a part of the world that few of us have even visited, serious policy questions come to mind. A book affords the proper media for questions of this nature to be explored. Bob Woodward, true to his journalistic training, does not venture here. Rather, the reader is given a blow-by-blow account of the stage entrances and exits of key Washington players reconstructed from interviews and notes of the players.

There is no thoughtful review of the questions raised. These are conclusions I can draw from reading my daily newspaper. I recognize that television's pervasive influence has forced other media outlets to adapt a tabloid view of the world in order to compete for eyeballs. The type of book I want to read takes longer to prepare, if it is going to be done well.

Clearly Bob Woodward and his publisher did not have that luxury. The market is hot; the public is being subjected to a cascade of Bush bashing books. Clearly a newspaper, like the Washington Post where the author serves as Assistant Managing Editor, provides the best medium to distribute this type of detailed reporting. But then again, that cuts out the book publisher.

It is at times like this when I recognize how old-fashioned I have become. Quality reporting belongs in the pages of a quality daily newspaper where it can be published in a timely fashion. Books should be reserved for the policy questions raised by that reporting.

The good news is given the facts, the American public has the capacity to sort and arrive at a conclusion. The question this book raises is why we have to wait for a book to be published to have access to them. ( )

3910. Plan of Attack, by Bob Woodward (read July 20, 2004) This is the seventh book of Woodward's I have read, the first being All the President's Men on Sept 1, 1974. This one is very deferential to the Administration, whose people cooperated with him in his gathering of data for the book. President Bush comes across as arrogant, unsubtle, and not very smart and it is clear he and Cheney and Rumsfeld were itching to go to war with Iraq as soon as they came to power, that 9/11 was a diversion for them, and then they falsely tied 9/11 to Iraq and went on to beat the drums for war. The book had unusual cooperation from the Bush people, and is aimed to be favorable to them for the most part. An interesting behind the scenes account of the time from 2002 to early 2004. ( )

Very dry (politics really aren't my passion) but thorough and fairly written. It was an interesting look into all the things that went on beyond the scope of press conferences. ( )

Woodward's method depends heavily on priviliged access to sources in the know, and reading his books, you can always tell who talked--they come off best.

This beholden-ness to special sources weakens his writing, but less so here than in Bush at War. Read Bush at War next to his latest book--can these possibily be the same people? What ever happened to the Harvard Business School President? What ever happened to all that competency? ( )