Bush, and Woodward, at war

Rarely does a series of nonfiction books provide compelling insights into Washington's drawing rooms the way Bob Woodward's trilogy does on George W. Bush's administration. But I'm not talking about the dozens of sources that Woodward uses in each book, or the fact that he gets boatloads of data from them because they know they can trust him to steer a middle course and to keep their identities secret.

No, what's really fascinating is the dramatic shift in tone from the first two books to the third. The earlier ones, "Bush at War" and "Plan of Attack," generally lauded the administration for its tough-mindedness, its cohesiveness, its clear goals, and its deep sense of mission. The GOP even distributed copies of the second book to show that the ship of state was in capable hands. But this time, in "State of Denial," Woodward has issued a searing indictment of flawed administration policies, internecine backbiting, and warning signals ignored. (Here's the Globe's review.)

What's changed in two years? Not the players, not the war, not the strategies. George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld are as resolute in their policies as they've always been, portraits of consistency in fact. But public perception has been turning against the administration and its war, and so has Woodward, mightily.

So is this latest book really a chronicle, or is it more a weathervane marking a political wind change?