"Bush at War"

Paper Summary:

The paper discusses how "Bush at War" develops a portrait of the inner workings of the Bush administration, but stresses that the book cannot be accepted at face value and must be interpreted as one side of the story. The paper looks at how Woodward shows there was no easily-identifiable strategy hit upon by the administration; they were forced to develop their own way of interpreting the terrorist attacks and terrorism in general. The paper discusses how the administration then attempted to shape this entity into one that could be attacked with conventional weaponry, tactics and military force.

From the Paper:

"Bob Woodward's book Bush at War, just like any piece of journalism, needs to be regarded with a certain level of skepticism. Primarily, this skepticism must be directed toward the sources utilized to create this unique account of the first 100 days following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Of course, Woodward uses the president and his top advisors as the primary sources, since they stand as the only individuals present during the important decision-making process of the war in Afghanistan. Official minutes of their meetings are also utilized. So, although these were the only legitimate sources available, it should not be anticipated that they would provide a particularly balanced portrait of the president or his administration."

Sample of Sources Used:

• Woodward, Bob. Bush at War. New York: Pocket Books, 2003.

More papers on "Bush at War":

• Analytical Essay # 27683 : "Bush at War"
• Analytical Essay # 68374 : "Bush at War"
• Book Review # 94704 : "'Bush at War'"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: