Live Q&As

Bob has no ghost writers. He does employ two researchers, and he gives them generous credit for their help. But generally, Bob conducts his own interviews and writes his own books.

We journalists are loathe to predict the future. The book is based on meeting notes from more two dozen closed-door secret strategy sessions and nearly 40 private conversations between Obama and Cabinet officers, key aides and intelligence officials, as well as interviews with more than 100 people -- and there are many quotes with stark candor. How those quotes will reverberate in the media echo chamber is anyone's guess. I long ago stopped trying to predict what gets picked up and what doesn't. 

Your comment may say more about the media and the public's attention span than about the book, but I think it will have the effect of bringing the average American back into the debate over the war in Afghanistan. The book provides a close-up on how the Obama administration makes policy, the priorities and principles that matter most to the president, and the divide between the nation's top military commanders and the civilian leadership. As the country heads into the mid-term elections, the book could fuel a national conversation about the administration, what it has done and where it is going.

For those who didn't see the news story, here is the quote from the  news story:

Woodward's book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger."

It is paragraph six of the story. We thought it was an important quote, particularly in context: It shows the reality of being the President of the United States, receiving a stream of intelligence and being responsible for the security of the country. The book also quoted Obama on the possibility of a terrorist attack from a crude nuclear weapons. From the news story:

A classified exercise in May showed that the government was woefully unprepared to deal with a nuclear terrorist attack in the United States. The scenario involved the detonation of a small, crude nuclear weapon in Indianapolis and the simultaneous threat of a second blast in Los Angeles. Obama, in the interview with Woodward, called a nuclear attack here "a potential game changer." He said: "When I go down the list of things I have to worry about all the time, that is at the top, because that's one where you can't afford any mistakes."

I felt that, as long as we provided the context, that these were important statements for people to read.

Thanks for that question. The first of three Woodward book excerpts will begin on Monday, under his byline. We always prepare a news story in advance in case another news organization obtains a copy of the book, and writes about it before the publication date. Last night, we learned that The New York Times was preparing a story, and we got ours ready to go.

The Post has an arrangement with Simon & Schuster, Bob's publisher, to run the adaptations on the day of the book's publication, which is this coming Monday, Sept. 27. That arrangement includes an understanding that if a news story appears elsewhere, we can run one of our own.

That's what happened. It has also happened in the past -- more often than not.

See the previous answer!

First, let me say that I've got several good questions waiting, and I'd like to answer them, so I'll stay online for a while longer. Feel free to send your question, and I'll answer as many as I can.

The Post just published an online article about the White House's reaction, by Anne Kornblut, one of our White House correspondents.

Personally, I think honest disagreement and vigorous debate is a good thing. Reading the book, I came away with the impression that the strategy sessions on the Afghanistan war -- there were eight full sessions, and many other smaller meetings -- were serious discussions about difficult issues. The disputes were more substantive than personal.

I tend to agree. I've never participated in a White House decision-making process, but as I said in my previous answer, I thought this was a serious discussion about real issues with no easy answers. In the book, Woodward quotes Obama as telling Vice President Biden that he feels as if he has no good options on Afghanistan. That certainly comes through in Woodward's account of the eight strategy sessions, and how Obama keeps pushing for an option with an exit plan.

I hope no one read my news story as an account of a dysfunctional process. That's not my sense of the process.

The book begins a few days after Obama's election,  goes through the entire 2009 strategy review and concludes with information that Woodward developed as recently as July. He interviewed Obama in July.

I don't have any special insight into the motivations of this particular White House, but I'll make an observation based on my 35 years in journalism. People involved in important events know that they have been given a place at history's table. They have a sense that their debates and discussions matter. They understand the stakes. Like many of us, they want their views and conclusions to be recorded and remembered, and they don't want others to characterize them.

Woodward does his homework. He comes to interviews already knowing a lot of information. It's a good technique for making people feel as if their participation in his reporting process is both necessary and useful. 

Remember, too, that Woodward has been reporting in Washington for nearly 40 years. He has relationships with people going back to when they were junior members of other administrations. They know his work, and trust that he will be fair.

Mike Allen and John Harris, of Politico, wrote about his reporting methods in a piece published today. They interviewed administration officials about their experience talking with Woodward. Here's their take:

Of course, not everyone feels that way. Some of Woodward's critics think he is too captive of his most loquacious sources. But having read "Obama's Wars," I think I can say that it's a narrative built on many points of view.

I've got time for one more question.

That's a question that only Bob can answer. If you get the chance, maybe in a future chat here, ask him.