The Opposition…

The War Within: A Secret White House History, 2006-08

Bob Woodward

Discussion: 2008-Oct-Nov-Dec

Why we're reading this: November 12, 2008
[close] November 12, 2008

Find A Copy At

Libraries

Group Discussions About This Book

Showing 2 of 3 topics — 3 comments total

2008-Oct-Nov-Dec

This topic has been closed to new comments.

* December 2008
By Tiffany , WristStrong · 1 post · 9 views

last updated Jan 07, 2011 02:50PM

* November 2008
By Tiffany , WristStrong · 1 post · 9 views

last updated Jan 07, 2011 02:36PM

What Members Thought

Feb 08, 2009 Jack rated it really liked it

Shelves: politics, presidents, nonfiction, war, history

This is Woodward's fourth book on the Bush Presidency at war. It's also, I thought, the best. As with all of Woodward's books, the reader is left to wonder how exactly Woodward acquired all of his insider information. However, it is clear he had access to the biggest players involved in the Bush Administration's efforts in Iraq. He obviously interviewed the most important people. Any criticisms from the pro-Bush crowd can be offered if those insiders feel so inclined. The White House itself issu This is Woodward's fourth book on the Bush Presidency at war. It's also, I thought, the best. As with all of Woodward's books, the reader is left to wonder how exactly Woodward acquired all of his insider information. However, it is clear he had access to the biggest players involved in the Bush Administration's efforts in Iraq. He obviously interviewed the most important people. Any criticisms from the pro-Bush crowd can be offered if those insiders feel so inclined. The White House itself issued a rebuttal of sorts, but still it seems that the bulk of Woodward's reporting has gone unchallenged. That may well be because those who know inside stuff cannot talk about it, but that's the way it goes in a democracy that treasures civil liberties and press freedoms. Whiners need not run for office (nor should anyone try to stop anyone else from whining). We can either not have the Woodward book, or we can have it with the understanding that there are likely certain inaccuracies. I'll take the latter, hands down. Those who had their mitts in devising poorly thought-out plans will have their shot at offering other perspectives (see Feith, Bolten, etc.)
This book covers the Bush Administration from early 2006 until about mid 2008. We see the President try to deal with the increasing problems that were evident in Iraq, problems that contradicted President Bush's overly optimistic public statements. We also see the efforts of those in the Pentagon, State Department, and in Iraq as they tried to come up with a strategy to address the increasing violence. As we mostly now know, the "surge" and elements often incorrectly associated with that title have reduced the violence in Iraq. What we haven't known about, and what we hope Woodward is accurate about, are the discussions, arguments, etc., that went into coming up with the surge. Fascinating stuff. People of all political persuasions can take comfort in knowing that the smartest people in the world of every ideology were hard at work on the problem and all were striving with good intentions. (Certainly, good intentions do not ensure good policy and may at times encourage foolhardy policies.)
When all is said and done, Woodward offers his thoughts on President Bush's war leadership, and Woodward makes a strong case for weak war leadership. Ultimately, Bush knew things weren't going well and was lying to the American people when he claimed all was well. He should have trusted the American people at an earlier stage of the war. Perhaps the Washington clock would have had a longer run time. The President should have also been more honest with himself. Contrary to claims of the right, the media was more accurate about the state of Iraq than the President was, and it seems that the President willed himself to believe things that were simply untrue. Who paid the price for those huge mistakes? He did to a small degree: his place in history will likely be among the lower ranked of our presidents. At best, he can hope for below average. We invaded Iraq because we believed that Saddam was a threat to us, and we believed Saddam was a threat because we believed he had WMDs. We now know we were wrong, and "the Decider" bears the most blame for that mistake. It was his call, and he got it wrong. Perhaps worse is that the US plan for winning there was disgracefully off the mark in every regard. From the initial invasion until final implementation of the surge, the Bush team made mistake after mistake, and history has recorded those facts. But those who paid the ultimate price for those mistakes are our brave servicemen and women and lots of Iraqis.
Personally, I don't view George W. Bush as an evil man. His intentions were pure, but pure intentions... Also, though the US effort was in disarray in 2006, and although we know who is ultimately responsible for that tragic state of affairs, perhaps the best that can be said of President Bush is that he may have been the one man who could have made the surge the reality it needed to be because of his own mistakes. Time will tell, but the time that has passed so far is not flattering to President Bush, and Woodward writes about it in captivating detail. ...more

2 likes · Like · see review