The Washington Post reporter's third book on the Bush administration is far less flattering than his previous two, detailing how the White House planned for and handled the Iraq War and its ongoing aftermath.
Critic Reviews
|
Outstanding
|
Wall Street Journal Peggy Noonan
A good book. It may be a great one. It is serious, densely, even exhaustively, reported, and a real contribution to history in that it gives history what it most requires, first-person testimony.
|
|
Outstanding
|
Washington Post Ted Widmer
Remarkable...State of Denial feels all the more outraged for its measured, nonpartisan tones and relentless reporting. It is nothing less than a watershed.
|
|
Outstanding
|
Chicago Sun-Times Ted Widmer
It is the angriest book Woodward has written since his first, "All the President's Men." Like that masterpiece, State of Denial feels all the more outraged for its measured, nonpartisan tones and relentless reporting. It is nothing less than a watershed.
|
|
Favorable
|
Sydney Morning Herald Bruce Wolpe
Woodward is the most influential journalist of our times.
|
|
Favorable
|
Boston Globe Chuck Leddy
Brimming with vivid details about White House meetings, critical phone calls, intelligence reports, and military affairs...Impressively detailed and eye-opening.
|
|
Favorable
|
Salon Walter Shapiro
Woodward's best book in more than a decade...It offers the most revealing in-the-room glimpse of the Bush administration that we have so far.
|
|
Mixed
|
The New York Times Michiko Kakutani
But if much of State of Denial simply ratifies the larger outline of the Bush administration's bungled handling of the war as laid out by other reporters, Mr. Woodward does flesh out that narrative with new illustrations and some telling details that enrich the reader's understanding of the inner workings of this administration at this critical moment.
|
|
Mixed
|
The Observer Peter Preston
Woodward Mark Three isn't as brave or as liberal as his admirers claim: it's merely a throwing out of old sources who have outlived their usefulness, a cynical clearing of decks. But at least it provokes reflection as well as incredulity: failure is so much more instructive than success.
|
|
Mixed
|
PopMatters Chris Barsanti
One comes away from State of Denial thinking instead not about why Woodward turned on Bush, but instead about the surreal contradiction of an administration willing to put itself, and the country, on the line for a war it doesn’t seem to want to bother following through with.
|
|
Mixed
|
The New York Times Book Review Franklin Foer
That Bob Woodward has strayed from the Bob Woodward method tells you a lot about the state of American journalism.
|
|
Unfavorable
|
Christian Science Monitor Peter Grier
As most of Woodward's authorial efforts, it often seems like a gazillion-word Sunday story from The Washington Post - the kind you get one-third of the way through, then quit when your eyes go numb.
|
|
Unfavorable
|
New York Observer Rick Perlstein
If Part III is the better book because it’s a more accurate portrayal of the Bush administration’s abject failures and inadequacies, doesn’t that make the author look worse? What was he withholding?
|
|
