Reasons I haven't commented on Woodward's book yet:

1. I didn't see 60 Minutes yet (still on the TiVo..)
2. I hadn't read any of the actual text till this morning's Post.
3. Outrage fatigue

Some interesting bits of extra flavor come from today's online chat with the author: Books: Plan of Attack (washingtonpost.com)

Smyrna, Tenn.: Bob, I'm curious. As a budding college journalism student, I'm wondering if the book "Bush at War," was basically a more flattering, less critical book about Bush and all that laid the foundations for you to establish a trusting relationship with the administration so that the second book could explore more deeply the flawed ideological nature of the Bush White House?

Bob Woodward: That is not the case. This book, "Plan of Attack," is not a one-dimensional portrait of the president or the administration. People are going to read it very differently depending on what they bring to the book. I was surprised and frankly somewhat happy that both the Bush/Cheney campaign and the Kerry campaign have put the book on the recommended reading lists on their Web sites.

...[Woodward:]In the case of Powell and "The Commanders," if you go back and read Powell's autobiography, you will find Powell discusses what I wrote saying that he was in effect a reluctant warrior and Powell then writes a one-word sentence. Which is, "Guilty."

He confirmed and the only dispute he had with what I had written was the timing of one of the meetings. I think some of the facts that people are arguing about now are precisely, or generally, confirmed on the record by the President himself, Sec. Rumsfeld or others.

I think that the White House is uneasy that I've reported that the decision on war was made earlier than they had previously claimed. I certainly stand by what I've written and I suspect in a lifetime we will see memoirs by participants who in one way or another will rehash the issues and the reporting that I've done and then in effect say, "Guilty."