State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III

State of Denial, Bush at War, Part III is the hardest-hitting in the series. Woodward, apparently feeling he used up his access to the Administration (but he regained access later after the Surge proved to be effective), let's loose with his indictment of President Bush. Woodward had several targets in this book. The first one is George W. Bush, who is characterized as being satisfied with the direction of foreign affairs and plays the role of cheerleader. Throughout the book I grew more anxious about whether anybody can truly communicate with Bush. One would hope the president listens to advisors, experts in different matters, as nobody knows everything and we all rely on others in this way. There just didn't seem to be evidence that Bush listens to others, although we can't know without being able to observe Bush in person. The second target is Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld seems to be very smart, self-confident and hard-working. He also is clearly a micromanager. Micromanaging the Pentagon is an impossible thing to do. It's too large and diverse. What went lacking is focused management of the war. This was extremely unfair to the volunteer troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. I kept wishing if only the late Colonel David Hackworth could be put into the mix of war leaders. Hackworth was famous for being a great warrior, leader and having utmost concern for the fighting troops. There are several third echelon targets. An interesting one is Condoleezza Rice. Rice also worked hard as did Rumsfeld. The work ethic and the brains were there. But being George Bush's friend was apparently more important to Rice than playing the role of National Security Advisor, leaving the country with nobody identifiable to give unpopular advice to the president. I felt the tragedy here yet we have to acknowledge that many countries have a nepotism system that precludes the kind of checks and balances that we used to take for granted. I felt that Rice could have been working in her capacity for a country with a dictatorship. Still, I have to allow the possibly that the greater tragedy put me in this frame of mind. It occurred to me that Woodward has quite a staff. I can't imagine one man producing this set of books all by himself. There is simply too much research for one journalist to do solo. I'm glad also to live in a country where critical expressions such as this are possible.

I couldn't put this book down. And what I read inside it last night scared me. In short the message of this 600-page expose is this: we are being led by an administration that is unapproachably isolated from reality, our troops are facing unrelenting violence from guerilla fighters abroad, things are growing more violent, and even the Iraqi people wish we'd leave. I emerged from reading State of Denial, the follow-up to Woodward's two previous books concerning the Bush administration, not only shaken and depressed but renewed in my sympathy for those American troops enduring the nightmare that is my nation's ongoing and misguided military presence in the crumbling, nominal country of Iraq. This book is beyond pessimistic but its message that things will only get worse in the future is backed up by data and testimony that seems all but undeniable. Here Woodward has interviewed top policy makers and those who were or are involved in running our shallow national policy on the Iraq War. As a result Donald Rumsfeld is exposed as a dictatorial yes-man whose frequent careless mistakes have cost many lives. It is revealed that a number of insiders, including the First Lady pleaded with the President to replace Rumsfeld with someone else: preferably an old guard GOP figure like James Baker. Tommy Franks and other generals are shown as short-sighted and clueless figures, often hamstrung by Washington, unable to plan for those long-term goals that should have followed an apparently easy victory in 2003. One thing that jumped out at me was the raw statistic that attacks against US forces are currently occurring almost quarter-hourly, and of course it's not news but shocking to hear again how radical Islamists are flocking to Iraq from nations thousands of miles removed, all for the chance to secure for themselves a "martyrdom" as they conduct assaults on American forces. This war is a quagmire and State of Denial--aptly named!---makes that very clear. It was entered into on false pretenses, conducted without a clear plan of execution and with scant exit strategy, and even the supposed justification for why we are there has shifted as the Bush administration re-defines its puzzling crusade from season to season. Woodward reveals how the President's own staff are as divided by the Iraq War as is the American citizenry at large. Those who sycophantically bow to Mr. Bush stick around in high-ranking governmental positions, and those who voice opposition to our out-of-control leadership soon find themselves ostracized---as was Colin Powell---or removed from their jobs altogether. After reading Mr. Woodward's book I feel the mess our President almost singled-handedly got this country into four years ago is at this point all-but hopeless in terms of victory ever coming or a pro-democracy future ever existing in Iraq. A small group of people have created for the entire world a very large and bloody fiasco.

Being right about this administration's `direction' in Iraq has not been a good experience; dissent seriously gets portrayed as opposing national security--as if the two principles cannot ever and do not ever coexist. Even as the evidence literally piles up to indicate otherwise, the president and his *remaining* cronies continue insisting their way is THE way which America must follow. The current ideological impasse is the consequential end result from their honest inability to work in reality! One of America's most venerated (if not also infamous) investigative journalist succinctly restates our case in his most recent book. At this point, it's not that he is making the case that Bush is a dangerous incompetent; it's at this particular point in this specific administration and pulling all of the information together with his conclusion. Their elaborate house of cards now rapidly falls down, but the Bush administration officials honestly continue on believing that their public policy is totally workable because they have constructed policy which intentionally does not require functioning in a state of reality. Since one of the general criticisms of Bush and his administration is their being locked away in `fantasy world' reading this work filled me with both a sense of comedic relief and ironic dejavu. How much further will America have to slide into chaos before we finally leave Iraq? Interviews conducted with Former White House Press Secretary Andrew Card drive home the point that Iraq was an operation just waiting to be bungled and the Administration knew how badly things were going all while feeding the American people spin otherwise. Card comes across as the most likeable one in this entanglement because he knew when to leave the White House while Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush are determined to stick with Iraq even while their own evidence indicates that a change in policy will be a perfectly acceptable (if at least rational) option. However, this administration has a standing aversion to operating on rational thought! This book isn't light reading by far, but it is important reading. Sure, we joke about their `dim' policymaking processes, but documented results of the Bush administration's processes were laid out right here. I will even go as far to say that it should be on the `required reading' lists of all people before we head out to the polls this November.

State of Denial" documents the Bush administration's Iraq debacle from the beginning. First there are Bush's initial rationale for becoming (our least-prepared modern-day) president prior to completing his first term as Texas' governor - basing his entire rationale on tax cuts, modernizing the military (eg. missile defense), education reform (Bush's major Texas "success" in Houston turned out to be a fraud), and helping faith-based initiatives (no thoughts whatsoever about foreign policy). Another Bush motivation to run, per Prince Bandar, Saudi Arabia's Ambassador, was to get revenge for his father's defeat by Clinton/Gore; then there was the smoldering need for finishing the job on Saddam Hussein. (Needless to say, these do not total to good rationale for becoming U.S. President, nor are they indicative of a serious thinker.) Selecting Cheney as V.P. running-mate also helped set things in the wrong direction - his bias towards finding evidence of WMD (eg. digging into unverified intelligence cables), focus on secrecy and regaining executive powers underlay much of the Iraq War marketing. Then there was Bush's selection of Rumsfeld for Secretary of Defense - partly based on the idea of proving Bush #1 wrong (didn't trust Rumsfeld, thought him too self-sure and arrogant), and Rumsfeld's subsequent selection of Joint Chiefs Chairmen that were easy to roll over (eg. reduce requested Iraq troop strength; fail to take their issues directly to Bush, per Nichols-Goldwater). (Failing to send enough troops into Iraq probably is the single most disastrous mistake made in Iraq War II, other than invading in the first place. However, it may be unfair to blame Rumsfeld - the Bush administration "group-think" (except for Powell) was that we'd be out of Iraq within a few months; further, it is doubtful that the U.S. has the troops to sustain levels the generals believed were needed. On the other hand, Rumsfeld has no excuse for not immediately taking action to improve vehicle armor against IEDs, failing to create a military strategy - besides aggravating all Iraqis through night-time raids, then driving up and down the roads allowing them the opportunity for IED revenge - to achieve security, and failing to create a set of 3-5 key performance measures and goals.) Deeper into the plot we get CIA Director Tenet's July 2001 effort to convince Rice to make terrorism a priority, only to get the "brush-off" from her - Woodward documents that no terrorism plan was even made ready for approval until 9/10 (after eight other issues), hardly the priority Rice claims. Far worse, if the FBI had simply been focused and monitored one of the two hijackers it knew were in the country, it would have learned that he bought ten tickets for himself and other terrorists for those fateful 9/11 flights - possibly unraveling the entire plot! "State of Denial" continues on to assemble other key pieces, including Bush's stubbornness, over-reliance on Cheney and Rumsfeld, and lack

I am writing this review as a once Republican that twice voted for the Bush regime. Normally I avoid books that attack one party or another because our media is so can skew an individuals writings. A friend received an advance copy of State of Denial and I finished it in a day and I must say, it is great. Each claim that this book makes from the Irag war, to Rumsfeld to Rice and finally to Bush are suprisingly supported and validated through many online NEUTRAL sources and as recently as last night, 09/29/06 many were validated by the White Hours. I do not want to ruin the contents of this book for anyone but I would encourage you to pick it up and read a few pages of Chapter 3. It will have you hooked. I hope this book will give people insight as to why it is so important to vote and more importantly research the party and officials they are voting for. There is a reason our country is in such a mess and this book well direct you to the right path. T~