VDH doesn't think very much of Woodward's latest. I don't recall exactly how many times Woodward insisted, in his interviews on FOX, that his facts were totally accurate and his analysis "tight", but the reality is that he can't verify more than half of what he says, let alone how he interprets it. Of the more controversial evidence, he probably can't verify more than 10%. If someone suggested that he were 90% false, Woodward would be correct in observing that such an the assertion can't be proved, but that's chiefly because the fellow who invented Gotcha Journalism, hasn't provided enough information to allow an objective observer to put his sources to test.
Relatedly, Al Qaeda's own narrative isn't exactly inspired by confidence in their mission. Given this, there are only two explanations for the almost-universal conviction in the media that we're losing the war: ignorance or mendacity. And although much of the consensus is built on ignorance of strategy (or even what strategy means, since it's usually conflated with tactics) I can't help but speculate that some small percentage of the effort is simply a power play, seeking to impose a narrative and thereby demonstrate dominance.
Hence, an effective counter to Woodward's aggressive defense is that the assertion that his book is mostly false in support of its key point, that the White House is in a state of denial about the war, can't be falsified. And more damningly, Woodward's theme reduces to incoherence in light of the enemy's demonstrated opinion of their own status. His narrative might as well have been a subjective religious experience, like Tulsidas' Ramayana, for all we know. Only in the perverse world of mainstream media, and in some dark corners of post-modern academia, is this considered a strength.
On Woodward's lack of credibility, Michael Ledeen wrote, persuasively:
"There doesn't seem to be much interest in Woodward's book here, and for good reason. Anyone who thinks he knows what other people are thinking, especially in situations he didn't witness—which is after all what most all Woodward books are all about—is not to be taken seriously. I haven't read a Woodward book since I reviewed his thing on Casey, which famously contained an account of a sort of conversation he claimed he had with the stroke-stricken director of central intelligence in the hospital. Woodward was scheduled to go on Nightline, and earlier that day Ted Koppel called me and asked what I would ask Woodward. "Ask him to describe the room," I said. "You know, what was Casey wearing? Were there lots of flowers? What color were his pajamas, that sort of thing..." And Koppel did. And Woodward froze, deer-in-the-headlights. Then he said he couldn't discuss it because it would "reveal sources."
He couldn't discuss it because he wasn't there. He was the source himself."
Thomas Edsall, in his interview by Hugh Hewitt, provided some support for this view of Woodward.
From what I have heard about the book, the larger point that it seems to make (perhaps inadvertently) is that government is now all about backstabbing and intrigue. The bureaucracy does not execute administration policy and is accountable to no one elected. The CIA certainly is not. Washington is playing with itself.
That is no way to behave if you want to stay a great power.
#2 from ww-hq: "From what I have heard about the book, the larger point that it seems to make (perhaps inadvertently) is..."
While I respect your effort to find something useful in this, and the point may even by luck correspond to reality (as even a broken clock is right twice a day), it doesn't matter what his point was, or even what point he may have made inadvertently. Bob Woodward fakes his sources, so it whatever pattern we see in the results rests on air. As they used to say: "any way you slice it, it's still baloney."
Unlike most people nowadays, I'm sympathetic to post-modernism in principle, but what killed it was a willingness to set aside truth or falsity in basic matters of fact while building up dream castles of interpretation. Once you do that, you're lost. We've had a lifetime of clever academics proving inadvertently that no good can come of this.
Bob Woodard is burned, and all there is to say about him is that he sometimes does get to data that can be valuable if it is independently confirmed.
You can say that much for David Irving. (link)