Skip to main content

View Diary: Bob Woodward rewrites the history of the sequester (34 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  coffeetalk, (13+ / 0-)

    Woodward and your defense of him are being far too literal. You're allowing a Woodward a big, fat pass by disallowing context. No one, one either side, interpreted this as "end of story".

    So please stop with your semantic bullshit gamesmanship. Reminds me of the crap proffered by Politifact.

    •  Woodward has the context. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ffour

      that's my point.  His book puts the President's sequester proposal in full context. His book goes completely into the Republicans' position on the Sequester -- it actually begins in 2009 with the stimulus, even before that.   Even his latest piece says that the President's argument that there should be more revenues is reasonable and is "a strong case."  But he also says -- completely accurately -- that more revenues is NOT the deal the President proposed, and made in 2011.  

      I think it's "gamesmanship" to write a diary saying that "Woodward rewrites history" -- when Woodward has reported ALL the facts accurately -- simply because SOME of the facts do not cast the best light on the President.  

      I have no problem with people here making the argument that the Republicans are to blame for refusing to raise the debt ceiling in the first place.  If that's what the diary had done, I would not have had a problem.  My problem is that the diary trashed Woodward for accurately reporting facts.  

      This is supposed to be a fact-based community.  

      •  Sounds to me, that what you're saying (6+ / 0-)

        is he provides a context up until he wants to bullet point and then he relies on weaselly flipping to a moment in time to be literally correct just like a lawyer preps a witness to answer as narrowly as possible. It's a means of negating the process in service of a particular moment in time then the whole process gets subverted in a technicality.

        •  Of course that's not what I'm saying. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          goodpractice, wrecktafire, ffour

          I'm saying that he accurately reported the facts in his book (which I've read) including ALL the context dating back to January 2009.  

          This one very short piece is based on misstatements by the President and Jack Lew that Congress proposed the sequester.  He says that statement is not true, and references facts in his book.  He says, accurately, that President (through Lew and Nabors) proposed the sequester, and the sequester he proposed was for all spending cuts, no revenue.  

          It is by no means either an endorsement of the Republican position, or a rewriting of history.  

          When the President and Jack Lew make misstatements of fact like "it is something that Congress has proposed," they deserve to be called on that.  If the President had said, during that debate, "the sequester is something we were forced into proposing because the Republicans were being unreasonable about the debt ceiling," this piece would never have been written.  But he didn't.  

          •  Cool for you, you read the book. (0+ / 0-)

            The context, though, is bigger than just the book. You ignore the Fox News sunday talk show Woodward appeared on last week where he waffled and wandered and finally said "everyone has their fingerprints on this", and you ignore his WaPo piece.

            Besides that, in the largest context, you ignore how the rightwing crazy media has embraced Woodward's waffling to make a completely erroneous case against the Obama White House. Just google it: "woodward sequestration" and see which cites pop up.

            Context matters.  And Woodward, in context, comes off as a bought-n-paid-for FoxNews right wing shill.

            •  His WaPo piece was a prompted by misstatements (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              goodpractice, ffour

              by the President and Jack Lew:

              “The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed.  It is something that Congress has proposed.”
              His WaPo piece was calling out a President, and one of his top advisers, on a misstatement of fact.  The President proposed the sequester, and his proposal was not "balanced," but was all spending cuts.  

              People who are focusing on this one short piece as if that is ALL that Woodward had ever written on the subject are being disingenuous, it seems to me.

              When  journalist points out a clear misstatement of fact about his own record by a President of the United States, that reporter is not obligated to go through the pages of details, in the very same piece, of the instances where the other side was a bad actor.  He references those.  But this piece was about a misstatement of his own record by a President of the United States.  And this piece was factually accurate.  

              He does not have to reproduce half of his book in addition to pointing out that the President, and Jack Lew, made misstatements of fact.  

              •  Context (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ORDem, ItsSimpleSimon, Eric Nelson

                Context of the Budget Control Act:

                1. House of Goop refuses to raise debt ceiling. Full faith and credit yada yada.
                2. Sequestration proposed to Reid by White House staffers Lew and Nabors. Agreed to by PBO under duress to persuade Congress to raise debt ceiling.
                3. Budget control act passed by Senate and House of Goop
                4. Signed into law by PBO
                5. Sequestration was supposed to be so onerous that the super committee would find a work-around
                6. Super committee did not find a work-around
                7. Current: blame game starts; no action by GOOP congress; Woodward, selling books, waffles on Fox News Sunday (it's got everyones' fingerprints on it, really???)
                8. Sequestration hasn't gone into effect yet, the GOOP congress could still fix it and this thread topic would be irrelevant.
                9. Instead GOOP congress goes on vacation and blames Obama from afar.
                10. You (and Woodward, see 7 above) split hares (ouch).

                Who owns sequestration?

                Congress, congressional super committee members, and PBO (imo for giving in to domestic terrorists). Also imo (apparently shared with the majority of American Voters) blame rests with goop congress.  

              •  Two different questions in play (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coffeetalk

                Thank you for your patient, scrupulous attention to the details which are a matter of public record.

                I agree with you--this diary did not establish that Woodward "rewrote history", as the title suggests.  Instead, it admits that what Woodward said was true:
                * the sequester was proposed by the White House and approved by the president, and
                * it was "cuts-only".

                The rest of the article is--in the name of context--, giving the reasons (if you are a Dem) or the excuses (if you're GOP) that the administration has for doing what it did.  And yes, those reasons/excuses/contexts are also facts, but they don't make Woodward's comments any less factual.  "I didn't do it", and "the other guy made me do it" are two different claims. And "who owns it", is another topic for another day.

                The folks who are arguing with you are having trouble admitting that Obama, Lew, and Carney are, frankly, wrong about whose idea it (i.e., the sequester) was and whether tax hikes were included.  By the way, http://en.wikipedia.org/... is pretty fair to both sides, IMHO.

                Not that anybody asked me, but this problem is hard enough to solve without the constant misrepresentations on both sides.  If I were King I would lock them up without food until they made a deal.

                Vote in haste, repent in leisure.

                by wrecktafire on Sat Feb 23, 2013 at 02:25:36 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Silly fool you read the book! (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coffeetalk, Whatithink, ffour

                You can't be bringing  facts into an argument around here when people have made up there mind and it doesn't fit the narrative.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (173)
  • Baltimore (88)
  • Community (84)
  • Bernie Sanders (66)
  • Freddie Gray (60)
  • Civil Rights (58)
  • Elections (41)
  • Culture (38)
  • Hillary Clinton (36)
  • Media (36)
  • Racism (33)
  • Law (32)
  • 2016 (31)
  • Labor (27)
  • Education (26)
  • Environment (25)
  • Republicans (23)
  • Politics (23)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Economy (21)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site