Skip to main content

Last night, Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward told the world that he had become a target of Czar Obama's propaganda machine and thought control army:
WOLF BLITZER (CNN): Share with our viewers what's going on between you and the White House.

BOB WOODWARD: Well, they're not happy at all, and some people kind of, you know, said, look, we don't see eye to eye on this.  They never really said, though - afterwards, they've said that this is factually wrong, and they - and it was said to me in an e-mail by a top –

BLITZER: What was said?  Yes.

WOODWARD: It was said very clearly, you will regret doing this.

BLITZER: Who sent that e-mail to you?

WOODWARD: Well, I'm not going to say.

BLITZER:  Was it a senior person at the White House?

WOODWARD: A very senior person.  And just as a matter - I mean, it makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters, you're going to regret doing something that you believe in.

Wow! A tyrannical White House bullying reporters and issuing threats. That's a SCANDAL. It turns out the email in question was from White House Economic Council director Gene Sperling, and as BuzzFeed editor Ben Smith reports, Republicans—and even some reporters—are flipping the you-know-what out:
The email from Sperling to Woodward, which Woodward read to Politico Wednesday, has transfixed Washington, with Republicans and some in the press charging that it embodies a White House lording it over a cowed press corps.
But if you spend twenty seconds reading the email in question, it couldn't be more obvious that Bob Woodward is completely full of it:
Bob:

I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. My bad. I do understand your problems with a couple of our statements in the fall — but feel on the other hand that you focus on a few specific trees that gives a very wrong perception of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here.

But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim.

The full email is here. Woodward's response?
Gene: You do not ever have to apologize to me. You get wound up because you are making your points and you believe them. This is all part of a serious discussion. I for one welcome a little heat; there should more given the importance. I also welcome your personal advice. I am listening. I know you lived all this. My partial advantage is that I talked extensively with all involved. I am traveling and will try to reach you after 3 pm today. Best, Bob
So not only was Sperling's email heavier on the apology than on the threats (more specifically, there was an apology, but not a threat), Woodward clearly interpreted it as such. Indeed, he said he "welcomed it." But then he went running to other media outlets to claim he was the target of a White House political attack. The first of those outlets, Politico, failed to report the "as a friend" portion of Sperling's email, nor did they mention Woodward's cheerful reply. CNN was breathlessly intrigued as well. The net result was that there was a political hit job going on: but it was Woodward who was leading it.

Oh, and you know what else? Woodward was wrong. But so was Sperling, because Woodward clearly doesn't regret that fact. He should.

6:42 AM PT:
Somewhere in Moscow tonight, Vladimir Putin saw that Bob Woodward was sent a threatening message from the White House...and he smiled.
@DanaPerino via Twitter for iPhone
Having been served in the administration that outed Valerie Plame, Dana Perino is clearly an authority on this topic.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Frankly. . . (48+ / 0-)

    I expect he's hurting for money and is courting the Republican base so they'll pick up his bills.

    Maybe he was told Americans had a dim view of his 'partisanship' while Nixon was President.

    For whatever reason, it's clear he's doing his best imitation of a Republican hack.

    The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.

    by Pacifist on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:32:43 AM PST

    •  He should just write a book (48+ / 0-)

      I could suggest a title "Quest for Relevance"

      What's wrong with America? I'll tell you. Everything Romney said was pre-chewed wads of cud from Republicans from the last 30 years and yet he managed thru a combination of racism and selling the (false) hope of riches to get 47% of the national vote.

      by ontheleftcoast on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:37:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Probably simpler than that (8+ / 0-)

      Woodward's just trying  to discredit an administration that could tax his yacht or his dividends.  

    •  How can he be hurting for money? (4+ / 0-)

      It's none of my business but seriously....how?

      •  It's discredit Bob Woodward day (7+ / 0-)

        on DailyKos.  Get in line, Tracy!

        Jed leaves a few things out, like the fact that Sperling was apologizing because he had spent a half hour screaming at Woodward earlier, trying to get him to stop quoting his book where Woodward wrote about how the August 2011 Grand Bargain deal went down, where the White House propose the trigger/sequester gimmick, and how Obama threatened to veto the bill when the Republicans tried to pull that part out.

        Really, this is a mistake to attack Woodward because the fact that the White House did the sequester now becomes a bigger piece of news when it would have sort of faded away if they had not made a federal case of it.  Whether or not Woodward is now a kind of loathesome creature, nobody is going to believe that he just has it out for Obama or is a lying Obama hater.  He played a huge role in taking down Nixon, a Republican. Nobody is going to buy this insinuation that he's just a FoxNews Democrat hater.


        "Justice is a commodity"

        by joanneleon on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:34:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  His comment about aircraft carrier (5+ / 0-)

          Truman though is wildly crazy.  He doesn't know why Obama makes any sort of troop movement.  Nobody does, I don't even know unless it is happening at our house and we are told when it is agreed that we get told because then everyone talks, it hits facebook.

          If it wasn't for that I might not have such a jaded view of him at this moment.  He has sort of lost it though over all this whatever it is.  Not that that doesn't happen to everyone at some point.  No matter how this shakes out I don't think he gets to smell rosey though.  It looks like he has guns wildly trained on Obama...every little thing he can pull out of his butt.

          •  Heh, and I have do have a couple (0+ / 0-)

            of people who will source that the Pentagon has enough "funny money" that if an aircraft carrier needs to go someplace it is going now :)

          •  Truman not deploying. (0+ / 0-)
            President Obama on Tuesday alluded to the decision to hold back the Truman. "The threat of these cuts has forced the Navy to cancel the deployment," he said in a speech in southeastern Virginia, a few miles from the Norfolk naval base. He sought to lay the responsibility for the imminent cuts on Congress, adding that "only Congress has the power to pass a law that stops these damaging cuts and replaces them" with more sensible alternatives.
            LA Times

            Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

            by thestructureguy on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 08:00:00 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, and if this is a matter of national security (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Subterranean, joe shikspack

              as he implied when he said that ship should be in the Middle East, he should draw up an emergency supplemental bill for war spending. He's done it before. Bush did it many times, funded a whole war on them.

              It's just not credible and to play games with things like that is madness, especially since his main goal is political, to place the blame on Republicans and to fearmonger about a Grand Bargain that he himself created.  


              "Justice is a commodity"

              by joanneleon on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 08:15:31 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I love you (10+ / 0-)

                You are one of my favorite people here.  So there is no strife in my comment.  I do not for the life of me believe for one second that Obama is going to risk National Security in any way.  It just isn't the dudes style.

                Within the military, active duty soldiers are not affected by the sequestration, neither are contractors at this point, only DOD civilians are.  Active duty at Fort Rucker project they will not be squeezed into feeling anything by sequestration until mid summer.  Civilian fed employees not so lucky, they will feel things immediately, they are going to drive the unrest and the military version are the Republicans most loyal voting block and they are going to be immediately pinched....not active duty though.

                •  Neither do I (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  joe shikspack, musiccitymollie

                  but he's playing a game right now and that is exactly what he is implying in that statement about the Truman.  Couple that with the other statements about how important it is to our readiness and security to have two carriers in the Middle East, or Straits of Hormuz, I'm not sure exactly which scope they are talking about, and he's fearmongering about budget cuts being a danger to our national security.  But I know that he will get the money to keep things at safe levels in one way or another.  That's what makes this fearmongering and blame game even more wrong.  It was a bad miscalculation on the part of his team in this week long blast of propaganda.


                  "Justice is a commodity"

                  by joanneleon on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 09:04:10 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  And (3+ / 0-)

                  I appreciate the insight and consider you one of my favorite people here too.  This debate is a friendly disagreement.  

                  I understand that he is not saying that the sequestration cuts will affect active duty troops.  I am pretty sure what he is saying about the carrier is related to the other quotes I posted in another comment that has to do with maintenance costs being the main factor in keeping a certain number of carriers out there.  And he pulled the Newport News shipyard jobs into it -- again the jobs that are related to maintaining these ships.

                  But that is a conclusion that I drew about the reason for holding the Truman back, based on various articles that I read, both older and new.  As far as I know, in that particular speech on Tuesday, he did not give a specific reason why the Truman cannot be deployed.  He just said that the threat of the budget cuts caused the Pentagon to cancel or delay its deployment.


                  "Justice is a commodity"

                  by joanneleon on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 09:08:43 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  As a former federal employee, not much happens (0+ / 0-)

                  immediately, LOL!  We wished.

                  Seriously, furloughs (which I've read may be one-day-at a-time affairs--not too critical, IMHO) might can be enacted in several weeks, but RIFs often take months, and of course, they start with "unfilled positions" first.

                  I think that it's been foolish (not you, the Administration) to try and blow things so out-of-proportion.  We have such a bloated military.    Hopefully, they'll take away a lesson from this.

                  CBO analysis states that the effect will be very minor for 2013.  It would amount to approximately 40-50 billion dollars that (because of the bureaucracy) would actually be cut in 2013.  In a 16 Trillion Dollar economy--not very drastic, at all.

                  Best wishes to all civilian personnel.  Went through more furloughs and RIFs during the two terms of Reagan alone, than I have fingers.  Frankly, most everyone I knew was rather pleased to have an extra day off.  

                  Now, over my twenty years, I must admit that I was happier toward the end of it, because of my income (having received promotions, etc).  So, I'm not oblivious to the fact that several weeks at one time, could be rough for lower grade personnel.

                  But, again, from all that I read, the plans are to mitigate the effects, by carrying out the furlough one day at a time--which they should.

                  Some of my fondest memories were working with our military.  BTW, the PtB should also be able to spare military members by cutting obsolete equipment, etc.

                  Best of luck to you, if you are with DOD. :-)

                  Mollie

                  "If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

                  hiddennplainsight

                  by musiccitymollie on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 02:42:11 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  What he said on that (4+ / 0-)

            was that he couldn't picture Bush, Clinton or Reagan telling the country that he was going to keep an aircraft carrier deploying to the Middle East when that is where it needs to be for national security purposes.  The White House launched a major league media campaign this week, listing all kinds of specifics on ways the budget cuts are going to hurt the American people.  This aircraft carrier thing was just another one of his hard line press on trying to make sure the Republicans take the blame for the pain they know people are going to start feeling soon.  

            The problem is that for something as important as deploying an aircraft carrier in the interest of national security, he's got a way to handle that.  He can ask for an emergency supplemental if it was important enough to be a threat to national security.  So Woodward was right, it was really strange to say something like that.  The budget cuts are important, but not so much that Congress would ever allow them to interfere with national security or put the country in danger.  That's really a kind of despicable fearmongering, and Woodward called him on it.  

            Over the past thirteen years, have you ever seen Congress turn down a supplemental war spending bill?  No, you haven't.  So scaring the country just to mend your reputation when you really f'd up something like this is wrong.  Woodward, a guy I am not fond of at all these days, was right on this.  And the White House, as usual, was trying to wear their teflon and to get the guy to shut up, and now are rallying their supporters and whatever media will do it for them, to attack and discredit Woodward.  Which is exactly what this front page post on dkos is about too.  

            It's a miscalculation though, imho.  Better to let this thing fade away rather than make it a huge issue that will be in the news for at least one 24-hour cycle, and worse, a news item that does the opposite of what they want. Woodward's original claim that pissed off the White House is that the sequester/trigger was their idea in the first place and they pushed hard for it, including a veto threat.  And that part is true.  So it just brings that up in the news, over and over, because the media will report about what started this whole kerfuffle.  Woodward still has a lot of credibility in this country.


            "Justice is a commodity"

            by joanneleon on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 08:08:59 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Correction (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              joe shikspack

              "going to keep an aircraft carrier from deploying to the Middle East "


              "Justice is a commodity"

              by joanneleon on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 08:10:13 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  If the carrier was needed (5+ / 0-)

              The President doesn't even need a supplemental.  The carrier is not needed though at this time according to our President's calculations.  Which are his to make and more than money goes into making such calculations...much more than money.  If we don't need it, why waste it at this point?  Woodward implies that the carrier is needed and that isn't his call to make.  If we are going into sequestration, is my President inferior to those who went before him in any way as a Commander in Chief making troop calls?  I do not understand what Woodward hopes to infer outside of Fox News.  My President isn't a megalomaniac like George Bush?  My President isn't some wild crazy bastard?

              •  Quotes / excerpts (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                joe shikspack
                WASHINGTON — Only days before the aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman was due to leave Norfolk, Va., for the Persian Gulf this month, the Pentagon abruptly canceled the deployment, pleading poverty.

                With cuts in the federal budget scheduled to take effect Friday, Pentagon officials said they feared that sending the carrier on a six-month cruise to the Middle East would empty their operations accounts.

                President Obama on Tuesday alluded to the decision to hold back the Truman. "The threat of these cuts has forced the Navy to cancel the deployment," he said in a speech in southeastern Virginia, a few miles from the Norfolk naval base. He sought to lay the responsibility for the imminent cuts on Congress, adding that "only Congress has the power to pass a law that stops these damaging cuts and replaces them" with more sensible alternatives.
                http://www.latimes.com/...

                Pentagon spokesman:
                “This is not a government shutdown,” said George Little, the Pentagon press secretary. “But it will start the erosion of our military readiness, and we will soon see impacts to bases and installations around the world.”
                http://www.nytimes.com/...
                Barbara Starr, de facto spokesperson for the Pentagon:
                While there have been months of dire predictions from the Pentagon about spending cuts, one of the most visible for the military could resonate across the Middle East at a time when uncertainty continues to grip the region.

                The U.S. Navy may face the prospect of not being able to routinely keep two aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf region, which has been a longtime requirement for any ability to launch military campaigns in that part of the world.
                [...]
                "It likely means the number of deployments drop because intermediate maintenance is slowed," the official said. "Think of it as the 10,000-mile check up on your car. We aren't even talking about the big stuff like refueling the nuclear system."

                With these cuts, the official said, the Navy will "lose the ability to surge" its carrier force by quickly sending those ships to a crisis area, he said.
                http://security.blogs.cnn.com/...

                Armed Services committee:
                Defense Cuts Have Navy Struggling to Maintain Middle East Carrier Presence


                "Justice is a commodity"

                by joanneleon on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 08:46:10 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  President Obama's strategy (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  vcmvo2, burlydee, Gator Keyfitz

                  At odds with some of the Pentagon, and this upsets you?  Girlfriend, you are fighting my fight today :)

                  This is a horrible thing to say where I live, but it is okay if the President's strategy is at odds with the Pentagon.  The green machine is like a tank, and once it has momentum forward it is a bitch to stop.  Defense spending cannot continue though on the road it is on and the Pentagon spends all day dreaming of reasons why you must give them more bigger better weapons.  This President is going to often be at odds with the Pentagon as it exists today or he is a failure as a President.

                •  Not seeing why this is a bad thing (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  joanneleon, Supavash
                  The U.S. Navy may face the prospect of not being able to routinely keep two aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf region, which has been a longtime requirement for any ability to launch military campaigns in that part of the world.
                  So the US cannot launch military campaigns in the gulf now?  I don't believe it, but if so, it would be great news.  Keep the sequester.

                  "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

                  by Subterranean on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 09:25:17 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I would agree with that (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Agathena

                    but that is not how it is being painted.  It's being painted as a threat to our readiness and national security in the media this week.


                    "Justice is a commodity"

                    by joanneleon on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 09:52:33 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  But I don't agree (4+ / 0-)

                    with the harsh domestic cuts that are part of the sequester, nor the upcoming cuts to Social Security and possibly Medicare.  

                    We should be able to just cut defense spending.  It has doubled since Bush took office and has not decreased under Obama. It has increased.  Declare the war on terror over and bring the budget back to something sane.


                    "Justice is a commodity"

                    by joanneleon on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 09:54:19 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Hear, hear, jl. I also don't agree (0+ / 0-)

                      with the harsh domestic cuts that are part of the sequester, nor the upcoming cuts to Social Security and possibly Medicare.

                      And what amazes me is that there is not more concern expressed here, about the message conveyed in the Sperling email.

                      This is what alarms me about what Gene Sperling's words:

                      The idea that the sequester was to force both sides to go back to try at a big or grand barain with a mix of entitlements and revenues (even if there were serious disagreements on composition) was part of the DNA of the thing from the start. It was an accepted part of the understanding — from the start.
                       
                      and,
                      that it was supposed to be replaced by entitlements and revenues of some form is not controversial. (Indeed, the discretionary savings amount from the Boehner-Obama negotiations were locked in in BCA: the sequester was just designed to force all back to table on entitlements and revenues.)
                      For cryin' out loud--why aren't folks in the progressive community concerned about this admission?

                      It appears to be a 'point blank' admission that the Administration is on-board with 'entitlement cuts.'

                      I'd say that we need to put our focus on stopping this train wreck, not bickering over 'old news.'
                       :-)

                      Mollie

                      "If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

                      hiddennplainsight

                      by musiccitymollie on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 11:56:34 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  It's true that Obama wants to cut SS (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        musiccitymollie

                        He's proposed cutting it before, but thankfully the house republicans rejected his proposal.

                        This email has nothing to do with "revealing" Obama's intent on New Deal programs.  He has always wanted to cut them, and the fact that Woodward thinks this is some sort of new revelation is very telling.  The guy just isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

                        "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

                        by Subterranean on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 12:57:01 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Hey, Subterranean--we're on the same page, LOL! (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Subterranean

                          My daily comments are often in regard to the proposed cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

                          I read the Press Briefing and all other transcripts daily, and it's all over the place, constantly.

                          BUT--many commenters that I encounter here on a daily basis "say that it just isn't so." That the Administration wouldn't dare even think of cutting entitlements.  And then, there's the school of thought that it's some type of 'chess game' strategy.

                          It's because of those sentiments that I'm constantly seeing, that I even brought it up.

                          I know it--but I thought that I'd point it out to others,  who don't seem to believe it.

                          Clearly, Sperling's main point in the email wasn't to tell Woodward this, since Woodward's a Washington insider who understands quite well "why" the sequester mechanism was set up.

                          It gives "cover to both sides" to make unpopular cuts, that they will then blame on 'hostage-taking," etc.

                          I truly don't believe that the Administration released this email hoping to emphasize their intentions to make these cuts.  

                          I can only surmise that they were so concerned with the "optics," especially now the the Repubs are screaming that they playing politics with national security, that they decided it was better to release them, even if it clarifies their intentions to the Democratic Party base.

                          But, that's just my takeaway. :-)

                          Mollie

                          "If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

                          hiddennplainsight

                          by musiccitymollie on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 01:28:14 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

        •  This one instance (11+ / 0-)

          If you just look at this one instance, he was being hyperbolic.  

          One thing I don't value in journalism is hyperbole.  

          He way overstates what was said to him.  That was made pretty clear.

          Whoever this Woodward Character is, he has shown in this single instance, regardless of what party he is part of, that he is willing to stretch the truth to make a splash for a story.  

          Or, he just can't read very well.  

          Is that a fair assessment?

          Streichholzschächtelchen

          by otto on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:58:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think Woodward played up the threat thing (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Supavash, Subterranean, hmi, Agathena

            and there was a touch of hyperbole in there, but he told him he was going to regret it, and that really is a veiled threat, so it's not that far off.

            And look what is happening.  The White House has begun the attack on him.  This is the 'you'll regret it' part, plus, they are well known for strong arming people in other ways, denying access, etc.  I suspect the threat really was more about denying him access. Woodward, because of his reputation for decades, has enjoyed extraordinary access to presidents and high level officials when writing his books.  Naturally, he wants that to continue.  

            And when they threatened him, he got pissed off and took it to a number of different media outlets. Yes, he admits that he did that on purpose.  I watched two or three of the interviews on video.  He said that when the White House threatens a journalist, he thinks the public should know about it.  I think that was in the CNN interview.  I can't remember.  

            The print media is making more of this than Woodward is though.  If you listen to what he says, you can see that.


            "Justice is a commodity"

            by joanneleon on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 08:24:06 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't see the threat, veiled or otherwise (7+ / 0-)

              I agree with you on some of the larger points here, but as far as this one event goes, in itself --

              Skimming headlines this morning, I thought of it as maybe a small threat, though I thought from what I could see that Woodward was making an awfully big deal out of something that is, if not exactly cool, also not exactly the same as, like, threatening to ruin somebody's career or whatever.

              Having now read the full emails, this really isn't a veiled threat as far as I can tell, even a mild one. This is a guy trying to apologize for having lost his temper and simultaneously trying to state that he does think Woodward's position is still wrong.

              Look, ultimately, I think the whole story of this event is frankly a bunch of dumb. But I take it very seriously when journalists are actually being threatened; we all should. That is a very serious charge. Both ethically -- it's throwing an accusation of deep and deliberate blackmailing, essentially -- and politically, because where it goes, always, is toward feeding the OMG WE'RE FASCIST narrative. Now, if it's true, that's important.

              This? I mean, I've heard worse than this from any number of people over the course of my life. This is like threatening somebody with "being very disappointed in them." So for him to level the charge and imply that it is some deep and dastardly personal threat to make him keep quiet, I mean, that really does piss me off now that I've read the full thing.

              Neither the content nor the overall tone imply anything untoward. The yelling -- isn't really ok, but people do have tempers and they do lose them sometimes. Frankly, I'm glad to see that an apology followed.

              On the rest of the actual story here, it's a mixed bag to me. I think the administration is playing a number of political games with all of it, and I also recognize that the sequester, which was a bad idea to me even then, probably seemed to them at the time like a way to force the republicans to negotiate. I know better, because I am a Californian and I have watched this game. Apparently, they didn't.

              Is the admin pushing a panicky narrative that I sometimes don't like, in order to try to force the Republicans to back down? Yes, they are. But that's how politics goes, I can argue any number of directions there.

            •  Incredibly favorable to Woodward (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Rick Aucoin

              Your reading.  

              It read to me like he was saying that the regret wouldn't be due to something the admin does, but instead the basic consequences of the actions.  

              More like a reminder of the consequences of Xtreme!  Journalism.  

              Streichholzschächtelchen

              by otto on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 10:57:06 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Woodword is coasting on his reputation (0+ / 0-)

              I listen to the man and read his comments and I am disappointed in him.  There are so many more talented news journalists who don't get half the attention.

            •  A "touch" of hyperbole? (0+ / 0-)

              Joan, your reaction to this whole affair has a bit of shark-jumping in it for you.  

              I know you're critical of the Administration.  So am I.  But you're being ridiculous here and coming across badly.  It's costing you credibility which is, frankly, ill afforded these days when there are so many partisan Democrats around here who need the occasional reality check.

              *The administration has done virtually nothing designed to reward its partisans. - Kos 8/31/10*

              by Rick Aucoin on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 06:11:02 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  finally someone gets to the point (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            4kedtongue

            Amazing some times how long it takes before a comment actually relates to the post,  thanks

            It seems quite clear from the context of the email that Sperling means "regret" not as a threat but rather Woodward will be embarrassed by staking out a position that misses the forest for the trees.

            This is a tempest in a teapot

        •  SPERLING raised his voice. "Screaming" seems (8+ / 0-)

          to be more hyperbolic rhetoric. And The WH has every reason to push back when someone like Woodward keeps repeating lies that have been proven wrong time and again. Why Woodward felt the need to insert himself in the argument in the first place is fascinating given his "credentials" as a "journalist". But I suspect he has been working overtime trying to regain some semblance of respect after his disastrous loveletter to Bush (and subsequent failed attempt at a mea culpa)and the poor sales of his Obama book. The truth is Woodward has always been a Republican, even in the Nixon days which is how he had so many inside contacts in the first place, and the wealthier he has become, the more Conservative as well. Woodward surrounds himself with military brass tied to the military industrial complex and socializes fairly exclusively with the more Conservative DC elite. And like many others in his field, he has eschewed actual reporting in favor of stenography. The mere fact that he purposely distorted his exchange with Sperling, when anyone not bent on conspiracy theories reads those emails as non-threatening, when even his response to Sperling proves he saw no "threat", pretty much says all you need to know about Woodward and his apparent need for relevance.

          For Christina's America

          by DWKING on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:59:57 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yelled (0+ / 0-)

            Screamed.  I think those words are equivalent.  Change it to "yelled" if you like.  That's what happened.  Sperling hasn't denied that and you can bet he would deny it if it didn't really happen.  They are all over this thing right now.


            "Justice is a commodity"

            by joanneleon on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 08:11:46 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  He actually got out of his seat... (5+ / 0-)

              ...jumped up on his desk, pulled out some his own hair, foamed at the mouth, and ripped off his tie because the veins in his neck were bulging so much from his completely unhinged telephone interaction with the unimpeachable and imperturbable Bob Woodward.

              Are we really saying that losing one's temper when dealing with a reporter is surprising or out of the ordinary or news?

              I don't care that Sperling screamed or yelled or stroked-out while talking on the phone with Bob Woodward.  

              I do care that Bob Woodward lied about feeling threatened by a high-ranking administration official over the use of the word 'regret' when taken in the context of Sperling's apology to Woodward for having lost his cool.

              Woodward is a liar.  Two men had a disagreement regarding who's to blame for the sequester -- and one of those men lost his cool and later apologized.  An apology which was accepted.  And then the one who accepted the apology went on television and said he was threatened by a high-ranking Obama administration official.  And he'll be on Hannity later to continue spreading that lie to someone who is more than willing to accept that lie as gospel.

              Bob Woodward has turned into a hack.

          •  Which lies (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            hmi, Agathena, musiccitymollie

            have been proven wrong time and time again?  Woodward is right on this one.  The evidence of it is not just in his book, it's all over the place.  The White House pushed this sequester, the triggers in his Grand Bargain.

            Woodward keeps repeating lies that have been proven wrong time and again.


            "Justice is a commodity"

            by joanneleon on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 08:26:24 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

              •  Woodward (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                4kedtongue, Supavash

                was completely hyping the alleged threat, and now that the emails have been released, he's embarrassed by it.

                •  He should be. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  VeloDramatic, Faito

                  Sperling called Woodward a friend in his apology for having lost his cool.  And Woodward, rather graciously, accepted that apology.  And then took to CNN to voice concerns about how an unnamed, 'very' high-ranking Obama administration official issued a veiled threat, saying he [Woodward] would regret writing a negative piece about the administration.

                  Now we've all read the exchange, and that Woodward by graciously accepting his apology and saying he would give his [Sperling's] advice some thought, completely understood the sentiment the word 'regret' was meant to engender within the context of the apology.

                  And then he went on CNN and painted a dark picture of the administration retaliating against a reporter for not liking what he was writing.

                  •  Last night (0+ / 0-)

                    Woodward read the email on the air.  He wasn't trying to hide the context or the content of the email. He had it in his hand, and sat there and read it.

                    There are a lot of inaccurate things being said in this thread.

                    now that the emails have been released, he's embarrassed by it.
                    If he was embarrassed by it why would he read it on the air?  And in politics, a lot of people call each other "friends", kiss and hug each other, etc. and it's all bullshit.

                    Woodward hyped the threat a little, but the fact remains that when a senior WH official tells you you're going to regret something, that is something to take seriously, especially if earlier, they were yelling at you for a half hour.


                    "Justice is a commodity"

                    by joanneleon on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 03:01:53 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You cannot be serious. Did you even read the email (0+ / 0-)

                      exchange? C'mon, even RedState had to admit Woodward got carried away and the Daily Caller says he played them, too. I get you side with Woodward and the Righties against the administration, but at least get your facts straight (or check in with your Conservative buddies to get the latest thought bubbles).

                      For Christina's America

                      by DWKING on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 03:56:29 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Woodward did not read the entire email (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      4kedtongue, Rick Aucoin

                      on air.  He read a "select" portion.  The White House released the FULL email as well as Woodward's email reply.  This is called context and full disclosure.  When you use this tactic, you are being transparent.  When you select excerpts which make your point, you are being a shill and showing bias.   By choosing the latter. Woodward has now been exposed and  is quickly losing credibility.

                      My question is motive.  Why would he make such an outrageous claim, one which he knew the White House would have no choice but to push back on?  Did he not think they would reveal the "source" and release the full details.

                      I shudder to think what would/could have happened if there were no emails to prove the WH's point.  It would just be Woodward making the rounds and repeating his lies.  And guess who the media would believe?  Judging by their response last night and earlier today, they would all have sided with Woodward.

                      That's why, although this seems to be much ado about nothing, I feel it is so much more.  Bob Woodward is not Luke Russert.  He is well respected and admired by and large by his fellow journalist.  For him to do such a sleazy thing is especially troubling.

                    •  Not buying it... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Rick Aucoin

                      ...after reading that exchange, it's clear that he was apologizing and letting his 'friend' know that he would regret being wrong, not that he would be made to regret going against the administration.  And Woodward understood it at the time of the exchange.

                      I hate disagreeing with you, but this is pretty clear cut case of mendacious behavior on the part of Woodward.

                      Plus, it's a sideshow.  Even if you accept Woodward's assertion that the administration is more to blame for having pushed for sequestration in the first place, WHO CARES?  The plan advanced by dems in the senate and by the administration to avoid the sequester was a combo of revenue increases and budget cuts as opposed nothing in the house and nothing but cuts proposed by senate.

        •  Did you read the full emails at all? (9+ / 0-)

          Here they are:
          From Gene Sperling to Bob Woodward on Feb. 22, 2013


          Bob:

          I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. My bad. I do understand your problems with a couple of our statements in the fall — but feel on the other hand that you focus on a few specific trees that gives a very wrong perception of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here.

          But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim. The idea that the sequester was to force both sides to go back to try at a big or grand barain with a mix of entitlements and revenues (even if there were serious disagreements on composition) was part of the DNA of the thing from the start. It was an accepted part of the understanding — from the start. Really. It was assumed by the Rs on the Supercommittee that came right after: it was assumed in the November-December 2012 negotiations. There may have been big disagreements over rates and ratios — but that it was supposed to be replaced by entitlements and revenues of some form is not controversial. (Indeed, the discretionary savings amount from the Boehner-Obama negotiations were locked in in BCA: the sequester was just designed to force all back to table on entitlements and revenues.)

          I agree there are more than one side to our first disagreement, but again think this latter issue is diffferent. Not out to argue and argue on this latter point. Just my sincere advice. Your call obviously.

          My apologies again for raising my voice on the call with you. Feel bad about that and truly apologize.

          Gene


          ____

          From Woodward to Sperling on Feb. 23, 2013
           

          Gene: You do not ever have to apologize to me. You get wound up because you are making your points and you believe them. This is all part of a serious discussion. I for one welcome a little heat; there should more given the importance. I also welcome your personal advice. I am listening. I know you lived all this. My partial advantage is that I talked extensively with all involved. I am traveling and will try to reach you after 3 pm today. Best, Bob  
          - See more at: http://nymag.com/...

          "What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them." -- Pres. Obama (1/20/2009)

          by zizi on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 08:07:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I watched the video (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bridge Master, Subterranean

            where Woodward read the email last night and then I read them in this diary, yes.

            The email was an apology for the verbal abuse he dished out to Woodward earlier.  


            "Justice is a commodity"

            by joanneleon on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 08:12:42 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You keep repeating verbal abuse, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Gator Keyfitz

              but it takes some stretching to equate  "raising my voice" to verbal abuse. Particularly when the guy on the receiving end declares "I for one welcome a little heat" and "You do not ever have to apologize to me." "The email was" not "an apology for the verbal abuse he dished out to Woodward earlier." "Verbal abuse" is your and only your construct, not even Woodward's.

              On the other hand, I am not surprised that Woodward has once again engaged in fabricating a simile of what really happened that is better placed in the fiction isle of any reputable book store. Why does he keep doing that and why does he still have defenders?

              "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -John F. Kennedy

              by basquebob on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 01:22:15 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  I can see why most propaganda outlets (4+ / 0-)

            didn't publish the entire letter.  If they had nobody would believe it was a threat.

            "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

            by Subterranean on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 09:31:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I read them--thanks for providing them. N/T (0+ / 0-)

            Mollie

            "If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

            hiddennplainsight

            by musiccitymollie on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 03:15:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I suspect he tried to get him to stop lying (9+ / 0-)

          not to fight the sequester thing...

          Regardless,  this is what inevitably happens when you decide that your primary agenda will be a Republican mantra, spending.  All goes back to the decision to start the Catfood Commission.

          I hope everyone that believe New Dems and Blue Dogs are helpful sees where they have gotten us.

          "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - Melissa Harris Perry

          by justmy2 on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 08:11:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Stop lying? (0+ / 0-)

            Are you saying that Woodward was lying? He might have lied about things before, but he wasn't lying about this situation.  


            "Justice is a commodity"

            by joanneleon on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 08:27:22 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes...saying the President stated the sequester (9+ / 0-)

              should be solved with all cuts, as he did on Morning Joe yesterday is a flat out lie.  Full Stop.

              The who started it is a different issue, but not the one with policy implications.

              "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - Melissa Harris Perry

              by justmy2 on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 09:02:40 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Well he seems (5+ / 0-)

              to have lied about feeling threatened.  Anyone who has now read the emails can see what a bunch of rot he was shoveling.

              This is the guy who lurked with Bernstein and Felt in dark passages in the wee hours to bring down Nixon for his criminal acts for crying out loud.  He suddenly felt "threatened" by Gene 'The Rock' Sperling, because Sperling said he was "going to regret" being wrong?

              In recent years (Decades), extreme credulousness has been the defining characteristic of Woodward - especially in his book-length stenographies - for decades now. It's why he has, up until Obama, gotten such great access to the very powerful; for pols the combination of Woodward's Watergate cred and his (actual) complete disinterest in doubting anyone's bullsh*t has made him an irresistible "confidante." The real question is why, given irreconcilable accounts of the same event, Woodward is this time choosing to believe the less powerful people who are insisting the sun came up in the west this morning.

              www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bob-woodward-politico-

        •  I don't think anyone here is attacking Woodward (8+ / 0-)

          because of what his book reported.  I never pay attention to Woodward's "reporting" because it always seems to center around him, and particularly how important he is because of the level of access he has.

          I feel perfectly safe attacking him, however, because of the disingenuous way he twisted Sperling's e-mail into some kind of threat during the interview.  It's obvious by his email reply to Sperling that he didn't initially take Sperling's remark as a threat.  This interview was just another way of Woodward's figuring he could make something sinister out of this and create sympathetic publicity for himself.  Typical.  If there's anything Woodward likes more than access to power, it's being in the spotlight.

          "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

          by SueDe on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 08:30:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  When somebody says (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            hmi, Agathena

            you are going to regret this, especially to a journalist, it's a veiled threat. Especially coming from an administration known for strong arming and playing with access, which is something so important to a journalist's career.


            "Justice is a commodity"

            by joanneleon on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 08:58:46 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Context (10+ / 0-)

              Yes, if someone only said "you are going to regret this" then that is a very thinly veiled threat.  But that is not what happened.  First of all, he said "as a friend, I think you are going to regret this" and the context makes it seem more like "you are making false claims and I think you'll regret it".  He's just saying that as a respected journalist, Woodward will probably regret making such obviously false statements.  That is not a threat at all, and I'm not sure how anyone can see it that way.

              •  Given the all out (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Agathena, musiccitymollie

                attack on Woodward today from Obama surrogates, I think Woodward's interpretation has been validated, and it's only the beginning of the payback.  The sad thing is that Obama has not provided any convincing evidence that the sequester was not his doing, which is the thing that Woodward claimed in the first place and the thing that the admin wanted him to stop saying.  

                I think this is a lose-lose proposition but more damaging to Obama than to Woodward in the end.


                "Justice is a commodity"

                by joanneleon on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 09:51:25 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  No Threat Here, Except... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VeloDramatic, Supavash, Rick Aucoin

            in Woodward's mind:

            But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim.
            When I read this, my first take (and my current one, and my evolving one as Woodward is defended) is that Woodward's claim - "...Potus moving the goalposts..." - will be seen, in time, to be a false narrative, and thus Woodward's credibility will be eroded on the matter. Big deal! Is Woodward that wimpy as to react as if threatened by that statement?

            If so, then Woodward needs to get out of journalism.

            "We will find fulfillment not in the goods that we have, but in the good we can do for each other." ~ RFK

            by paz3 on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 10:52:47 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry -- (7+ / 0-)

          But Wodward's characterization of the threat implied by a very high-ranking Obama administration official is pure fabrication -- and a blatant, willful LIE (yes, a lie given the cordial reply he sent to Sperling in response to his oh-so-ominous threat) which throws his credibility on the entire matter into serious question.

          Woodward lied -- and he lied about his interactions with someone who he claims is a friend.

          Is the administration playing politics (clutching my pearls here to even think that the administration would want to pin this on the Republicans who were more than happy to fly a kamikaze mission directly into the heart of a faltering economy by holding a gun to the president's head over raising the Debt Ceiling)?  Seriously, no president has ever had to negotiate with such an unprincipled opposition over something as routine as raising the debt ceiling in order to pay for things which were already agreed to.

          As Ezra Klein has repeatedly noted, the entire idea behind sequestration was that it would never happen -- that it would bring both parties to the table and that a deal would be struck that would contain things that both sides liked and hated.  It was a mechanism instituted to FORCE compromise.  

          Sperling is absolutely correct in saying that Woodward's inane and myopic  focus on a few trees has given a false impression of the actual forest.

        •  "You will regret" cancels out the apology (0+ / 0-)
      •  How can he be hurting for money? It's easy. (0+ / 0-)

        There are plenty of people who'll help you fritter it away.  And even if he still has plenty of money, he's been running with a crowd that has a lot of immensely wealthy people.  That can make you feel poor for not being a billionaire.  You lose sight of how rich you are yourself, and start thinking you ought to have a dozen houses, with elevators for your cars.

        We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

        by david78209 on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:48:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Regrets? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cactusgal, vcmvo2

      This guy survived the Janet Cooke scandal. What regrets could he possibly have after that?

      The Republican brand: "Consequences, schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich"

      by D in Northern Virginia on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:28:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sally Quinn's gonna have... (0+ / 0-)

      Something to say about all of this.

      The Republican brand: "Consequences, schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich"

      by D in Northern Virginia on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:34:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  "It was a dank, foggy night in the Capital. (21+ / 0-)

    By clandestine pre-arrangement, I agreed to meet a senior White House official in a parking garage..."

  •  Washed up has-been (22+ / 0-)

    gotta do something for attention.

    +++ The law is a weapon used to bludgeon us peasants into submission. It is not to be applied to the monied elite.

    by cybersaur on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:34:53 AM PST

    •  Mark Felt died (8+ / 0-)

      Woodward, always a Republican with Establishment connections, no longer has them.

      This is his cri de coeur.

      [Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security] do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.

      by MoDem on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:10:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, he's just a hater (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shaharazade, thestructureguy, hmi

        hates Democrats, and that's why he took down a Republican president, the only president to be forced to resign in how many years?

        I know you guys have been tasked with smearing Woodward, but it's really a fool's errand.  He's known as a Republican president slayer, not a guy who takes down Democratic presidents. That is set in stone, whether he's a Republican or not.  

        This is a losing battle that makes fervent Obama supporters look really foolish. Especially since the information at the root of what Woodward is saying is true.  The Obama admin did shove the triggers/sequester down the throat of Congress, including at least one veto threat.

        Better to let this whole thing fade away rather than making it an even bigger deal by sending out the cavalry to attack Woodward.  Seriously.  Losing battle here.  Making things worse.


        "Justice is a commodity"

        by joanneleon on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:38:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Is that so? (12+ / 0-)
          I know you guys have been tasked with smearing Woodward, but it's really a fool's errand.
          That's a pretty specific accusation. Do you mean it literally?
        •  the root of the issue isn't who started it (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Supavash, The Nose, ichibon, FiredUpInCA

          its whether revenues were included...that is why the WH is rightfully pushing back...they didn't go full force until the moving the goal posts thing showed up...

          this  is Woodward's Judy Miller moment...

          "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - Melissa Harris Perry

          by justmy2 on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 08:13:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Now if we are talking about hyperbole (0+ / 0-)

            This is major league hyperbole.  Judy Miller helped the Bush administration lie us into a war, and got caught at it.

            Wow.  You're really way out there on this.


            "Justice is a commodity"

            by joanneleon on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 08:50:13 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It is the moment when the rest of the DC Class (9+ / 0-)

              realizes that a prestigious journalist is actually a shill.

              Has nothing to do with content or impact of said content.

              Woodward is clearly lying for partisan advantage, on revenue and threats.  He will no longer be looked at as an unbiased journalist. He will likely move into the Judy Miller to Fox News role.

              I don't  think that is hyperbole at all.

              "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - Melissa Harris Perry

              by justmy2 on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 09:05:17 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  What are the lies (0+ / 0-)

                that Woodward is telling?


                "Justice is a commodity"

                by joanneleon on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 09:55:06 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  1. Gene Sperling threatened him (5+ / 0-)

                  2.  The WH moved the goal posts on revenue, which has been clearly and thoroughly debunked.  Which was the actual point of Sperling's email, not whose idea sequestration was...

                  I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. My bad. I do understand your problems with a couple of our statements in the fall — but feel on the other hand that you focus on a few specific trees that gives a very wrong perception of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here.

                  But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim.

                  Sperling is 100% correct. It was actually in the bill and stated at the time of signing.

                  "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - Melissa Harris Perry

                  by justmy2 on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 10:46:12 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Woodward has been doing a good job (5+ / 0-)

          of smearing himself for the last few years. He was threatened by that email? Oh lol...

          "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

          by high uintas on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 09:24:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Busted! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rick Aucoin
          Yeah, he's just a hater hates Democrats, and that's why he took down a Republican president, the only president to be forced to resign in how many years?

          I know you guys have been tasked with smearing Woodward, but it's really a fool's errand.

           
          Oh oh, here we go: "...you guys have been tasked with smearing Woodward..." Yeah, I got my early a.m. encrypted email from Kos instructing me on my mission for today: smear Bob Woodward! Fast! Wow, how did you find out? Did you hire anonymous to hack my inbox?

          Once someone says, "you guys," or something similar, the troll alarm sounds, and it's all over, as a rule. Please clarify your divisive rhetoric. It's so RedState...

          Also, Woodward brought down Nixon how many years ago? You're claiming that people can't or don't change over time as their interests shift?

          "We will find fulfillment not in the goods that we have, but in the good we can do for each other." ~ RFK

          by paz3 on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 11:07:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  You must not watch much Morning Joe where (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Gator Keyfitz

          Woodward has a seat with his name on it.

          Maybe he is just a has-been.He hasn't said anything terribly impressive for years.

          You can only coast on a reputation for so long. There are so many better journalists that never see the inside studio of Morning Joe.

          Hope these comments are too strong for you to deal with but others who have observed Woodward are entitled to an opinion of him too. I first became aware of his dimming talents under the Bush administration. He had a great opportunity and he wasted it. He is simply not the talent he used to be. So sad.

        •  You're right--below is the "veto threat." (0+ / 0-)

          11/21/

          Obama: I Will Veto Attempts To Get Rid Of Automatic Spending Cuts

          President Barack Obama gave a press conference after the Supercommittee officially admitted it failed to reach an agreement to cut $1.2 trillion in budget spending over the next 10 years.  Obama told reporters he would veto any attempt to get rid of the automatic cuts which are set to kick in as a part of the sequester proposition, which will be triggered unless Congress reaches over the next year.
          Honestly, I think that it's time to move on [from this conversation].  

          It is just a distraction from the issues that really matter.  [Like creating jobs, protecting Social Security and Medicare from draconian cuts, etc.]

          Mollie

          "If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

          hiddennplainsight

          by musiccitymollie on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 03:09:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're pulling a Woodward now. (0+ / 0-)

            Context is so important when you are attempting to discuss such complicated issues.  This is the same mistake Woodward makes.

            The block quote you have above is in response to the GOP talking about taking out the Defense portion of the sequester and substituting it with other cuts.  President Obama said uh-uh, no way.

            Anybody, and I mean anybody, who has been paying attention knows the President's position has always been the same:  A balanced approach.  Period.  Full Stop.  

            •  Respectfully, I am not "pulling anything, LOL!" (0+ / 0-)

              Seriously, my only intended point in this particular comment was that he did issue a veto threat.   Don't have time to go through the thread again, but if you're interested, look again and you'll see that my comment is merely substantiating another commenter's statement (that the President issued a veto threat).

              I actually started to just put the "headline" up, since that was my only point.

              Here's a link to the Forbes piece.  In no way was it my intention to deceive.  Heck, in this comment I didn't address the "why or wherefores" of the veto threat.  

              However, I have commented on numerous occasions as to my opinion of "sequester Gate."  For clarification on my stance, I hope that you read my other comments.

              And I do think that this has become a silly distraction.   Now that the conversation has turned to 'politicizing national security,' the Administration would be well-served to move on.

              And I hope that they've learned not to try a gimmick like the sequester "trigger mechanism," LOL!  

              They should run for the hills, if anyone even brings it up again. :-)

              P.S.  I hope that you read the transcripts of the Daily Press Briefings with Jay Carney (under Transcript Editors).  And also many of the transcripts of the President's remarks, like his recent ones to a 'Business Council.'

              The President has not said "uh-uh, no way" in regard to cutting Social Security and Medicare.

              As I pointed out in a couple of other comments on this thread, Gene Sperling says several times in his email that the two parties are in agreement that they will trade "cuts to entitlements," for new tax revenue.

              You may call that balance.  I call that baloney or hooey.

              Not to mention, 'political suicide' if the Democratic Party goes for this proposition.

              So, I guess 'we'll just have to agree, to disagree on this one.'  :-)

              Mollie

              "If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

              hiddennplainsight

              by musiccitymollie on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 10:31:17 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  And running to Sean Hannity... (0+ / 0-)

          ...and Fox to double down is exactly what credible people do. More like someone who wants a sympathetic audience so his delusional story gets some traction.

          Wouldn't be surprised to find out Woodward had asked for a restraining order for Santa Claus for singing, 'You better watch out...'

          joanneleon, as a 'virtual' friend and someone who agrees with much of what you post here, I think you're going to regret your defense of Woodward in this instance.

          :)

    •  Of course he is. n/t (0+ / 0-)

      Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

      by thestructureguy on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 08:01:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  What a dick. (43+ / 0-)

    It is crystal clear that the "live to regret it" part of the email is simply a belief that Woodward will be proved wrong and will regret his words when that happens.  There's no threat or implication that the White House will make him regret it with retaliatory conduct.

    Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

    by absdoggy on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:34:58 AM PST

  •  shows corrupt political culture of Washington (16+ / 0-)

    Both parties are participating in the sequester non crisis.

    All they have to do is to repeal the law.

    But they want DRAMA.

    Bob Woodward embodies US political culture in a single outburst
    Washington's most celebrated journalist hails the values of militarism, lawlessness, and presidential omnipotence

    the law is so quaint]

    the constitution is so quaint

    But whatever Obama's motives might be, the fact is that what we call "law" really does require some cuts in military spending. To refuse to do so would be to assert powers not even most monarchs have: to break the law at will. Woodward is right about one point: not only would prior presidents have been willing to do this, this is exactly what they did. Indeed, George Bush's entire presidency was explicitly predicated on the theory that the president has the power to break the law at will whenever he deems that doing so promotes national security. That America's most celebrated journalist not only supports this, but demands that all presidents follow this model of lawlessness, is telling indeed.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/...
  •  Raising taxes is moving the goalposts? (16+ / 0-)

    Hell, revenue also means closing loopholes and even Repubs have proposed that (sans specifics of course). So WTF is Wayward talking about? Since when was a balanced approach to cutting the deficit moving the goalposts? Revenue has ALWAYS been part of the WH's proposals to lower the deficit.

    Seems to me that someone needs to think about retiring, maybe getting a cat.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:37:46 AM PST

    •  How have we possibly reached the point (6+ / 0-)

      Where closing loopholes is seen as a bad thing??

      •  madronagal--Glad you're wanting to pay higher (0+ / 0-)

        taxes, LOL!

        Seriously, I have a problem with "austerity measures." And that's what 'raising taxes at the same time that deep cuts to Social Security and Medicare are implemented,' amounts to.

        If the Administration does invoke Bowles-Simpson's proposals on "Tax Reform" by closing so-called 'loopholes'  (and remember, B-S's proposals have been evoked by name several times in the past weeks--SOTU, etc.), Mr. Mollie and I stand to lose the following tax deductions, the the minimum:

        (1) our tax deduction (or shielding of income) for the employer portion of our health insurance premium, (2) our home mortgage interest deduction, and (3) a deduction that is allowed for some categories of employees, who must pay necessary work expenses "out of their own pocket."

        Already, the Administration changed the federal income tax eligibility standard for 'medical deductions' to a 10%, threshold of annual income, instead of the 7.5%, that it had been for years and years (as a result, our exorbitant medical expenses this year, may not be deductible.  Of course, I won't know for sure about that deduction [medical], until later in the year.

        Frankly, if they raised the tax rate a couple of percentage points or so, we'd be better off.

        But the Bowles-Simpson proposal is calling for "lowering the marginal tax rates, by broadening the base."

        Translation:  Low and middle income Americans will be losing many standard tax deductions [along with the wealthy] in order to bring down the top marginal tax rates for the wealthy and corporations.

        So, please, unless you're familiar with the Bowles-Simpson tax reform proposals and are dying to pay more taxes, you may want to think twice before jumping on board with the idea of 'closing tax loopholes.'  :-)

        Here's The Moment Of Truth the Bowles-Simpson (Chairman's Mark) proposal.

        [If it weren't advantageous to the wealthy, why would they be in favor of closing tax loopholes--which they definitely are!]

        Mollie

        "If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

        hiddennplainsight

        by musiccitymollie on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:01:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  "I for one welcome a little heat... (16+ / 0-)

    'cause then I can whinge and sell some product. Bobby needs a brand new bag! Cha-Ching!!!"

    Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. (Terry Pratchett)

    by angry marmot on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:38:08 AM PST

  •  Woodward is going to regret it (38+ / 0-)

    Because this petty exchange makes him look somewhat dishonest.  Sperling's email seems rather friendly, certainly not threatening.

    This story seems pretty irrelevant, especially when there are so many other news stories to cover.

    It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them. FDR

    by Betty Pinson on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:39:24 AM PST

  •  "Help, help, I'm being repressed!" (26+ / 0-)

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:39:29 AM PST

  •  Seems Clear (6+ / 0-)

    That someone in the White House thinks it's okay to cut off access to reporters who misrepresent what is going on in the Administration.

    "I'll believe that corporations are people when I see Rick Perry execute one."

    by bink on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:39:50 AM PST

  •  What reporter becomes part of the story? (18+ / 0-)

    Woodward has been watching too much Fox, I think, and wants in on the action.

    •  You forget (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Janet 707

      Robert Redford played him. He's a VIP.

      Although Bernstein has him beat. Nicholson and Huffman have played him.

      [Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security] do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.

      by MoDem on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:13:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  What reporter becomes part of the story? (7+ / 0-)

      1./ Gergin (sp?) (david)
      2./ Judith Miller (nyt)
      3./ David Gregory
      4./ Bret Baier
      5./ Kathleen Parker
      6./ this list has no ending aka undead zombie list
      7./ insert fav here; possibly woodward is fav?
      8./ top undead zombie of nineties russert; rip-
      9./ Robert Novak rip; died of bad karma from amnesty, abortion and acid in 2007?
      10./ Lucianne Goldberg "pussycat"

      Evidence that contradicts the ruling belief system is held to extraordinary standards, while evidence that entrenches it is uncritically accepted. -Carl Sagan

      by RF on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:21:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  he has always been...he had a movie made about him (0+ / 0-)

      "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - Melissa Harris Perry

      by justmy2 on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 08:18:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  WHOA!!! THAT'S what's behind these eff you (7+ / 0-)

    Woodward posts!!! Oh shit, what a piece of spineless fucking garbage he is.

    What a treacherous bastid.

    None of you here ever have to apologize to me.
    Thank you.
    Best,
    Floyd

    Buy Aldus Shrugged : The Antidote to Ayn Rand, and tear Ayn and the GOP new orifices. ALL ROYALTIES BETWEEN NOW AND MARCH 1, DONATED TO THIS SITE, DAILYKOS!! @floydbluealdus1

    by Floyd Blue on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:41:27 AM PST

  •  This should get Bobby on the Sunday Morning Shows (4+ / 0-)

    for the next few months.
    He may be a competent economist but Gene Sperling is a stupid trusting liberal sap.

  •  Off to a Formaldehyde FEMA trailer with him!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lenzy1000

    ...oh, and throw Hannity in there too.

    Who?

    Buy Aldus Shrugged : The Antidote to Ayn Rand, and tear Ayn and the GOP new orifices. ALL ROYALTIES BETWEEN NOW AND MARCH 1, DONATED TO THIS SITE, DAILYKOS!! @floydbluealdus1

    by Floyd Blue on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:42:40 AM PST

  •  Did somebody not want to talk to (8+ / 0-)

    Woodward after he "staked a claim" that contradicts what his sources at the White House believe?

    I think Woodward values his access too much. He can not talk  with out fixating at least as much on his personal status as an insider as on whatever topic he is covering. He's become little more than his own story. It's a petty drama.

  •  Trying to keep a friend from looking like the (22+ / 0-)

    idiot he is not at all the same as a threat, which is how I read the two e-mails.

    Oh, and the Bush Administration never threatened anyone for "disloyalty." HAH!

    "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

    by Lily O Lady on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:43:53 AM PST

  •  I lost a lot of respect for Woodward (18+ / 0-)

    during the Bush years. And I suspect he'll back off this line of attack after people push back,  just as he did then.

    Money doesn't talk it swears.

    by Coss on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:45:24 AM PST

    •  He kind of smells like a (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Coss

      Conservative journalist :)  It's like experiencing aftershave

    •  I can't imagine why anyone would respect him... (0+ / 0-)

      ... at any point after 2000.  Or before, other than Watergate.

      I mean, is there a journalist in The Village who's on his knees more for those in power?  I think not.

      *The administration has done virtually nothing designed to reward its partisans. - Kos 8/31/10*

      by Rick Aucoin on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 06:19:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  GAH! Damn subconcious brain blender! (0+ / 0-)

        After posting this comment I went back to bed for a few hours, hadn't gotten a lot of sleep last night and was pretty tired.

        Thanks to this post and having had watched Chapter Six of the most excellent Netflix series "House of Cards", where Kevin Spacey's Majority Whip character backs the Teachers Union lobbyist into a corner (literally) with derision and insults, badgering the lobbyist about how he's just a "cocksucker" of men who have real power.  "I can practically smell the cock on your breath from here" at one point.

        It was a masterfully done scene, and any of these "I have access to people who have real power" princesses like Bob Woodward fit in it easily.

        But then my morning nap was fraught with dreams of f'ing Bob Woodward coming on to me in the most vulgar and direct sorts of ways.  

        It was horrifying.  Gah.  There isn't enough brain bleach in the world...

        *The administration has done virtually nothing designed to reward its partisans. - Kos 8/31/10*

        by Rick Aucoin on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 11:47:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Oh my god...and we finally pulled the Benghazi (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Quicklund, TomP, lcbo, Bridge Master

    canard out of Lindsey Graham and John McCain's collective ass.

    This is going to be boring as hell as it gets whipped up by Fox & fucktards everywhere.

    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

    by darthstar on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:46:50 AM PST

  •  The veneer has been off for a long time, Woodward (18+ / 0-)

    is nothing but a Republican shill.

    Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

    by DefendOurConstitution on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:47:47 AM PST

  •  I think Bob Woodward will have no regrets (9+ / 0-)

    Bob Woodward is not part of the Village. Bob Woodward decides who is and is not allowed in the Village. He's the mayor.

    The facts that he is utterly wrong and utterly shameless cannot have consequence because he, not Obama, is above reproach.

    Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

    by blue aardvark on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:48:46 AM PST

  •  So, Woodward thought that Sperling (12+ / 0-)

    wouldn't see any of his interviews with the press wherein he calls his "anonymous" source a bully?
    Doesn't say much for Woodward's intelligence!!

  •  Woodward is very impressed with his own (18+ / 0-)

    importance.  Or what he thinks is his own importance.  He takes himself much too seriously.

    "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

    by Diana in NoVa on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:49:13 AM PST

  •  Oh noes!!! (8+ / 0-)

    The much feared strongly worded email.

    Some people have short memories

    by lenzy1000 on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:50:55 AM PST

  •  GOP stenographer Bobby "The Wuss" Woodward (7+ / 0-)

    This hack has been irrelevant for years, no, decades.  A measure of how far he has sunk can be seen in this desperate attempt to attain martyrdom by flat-out lying about an email exchange.  If there is any justice, this craven grab for the mantle of relevance will plunge him further into richly deserved obscurity.

  •  The threat was to ruin his reputation. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pamelabrown

    And so it begins...

    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

    by HairyTrueMan on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:52:26 AM PST

  •  Perhaps Mr Woodward's in onset Alzheimer's (0+ / 0-)

    His think bone is on the fritz for one reason or another. Quite the pathetic display.

  •  "I for one welcome a little heat..." (20+ / 0-)

    In fact, I love it because I can turn it into more air time for me me me.

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:54:40 AM PST

    •  Perhaps he should get some. Start by showing (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Remediator, saluda, The Nose, ichibon

      that Mark Felt was the ONLY reason Woodward got that material.

      From Wikipedia:

      Felt selected Woodward and Bernstein because he knew they were assigned to investigate the burglary. Instead of seeking out prosecutors at the Justice Department, or the House Judiciary Committee charged with investigating presidential wrongdoing, he methodically leaked information to Woodward and Bernstein to guide their investigation while keeping his own identity and involvement safely concealed.
      Woodward was an accidental journalist.

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      —Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:29:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  While I am no fan of Bob Woodward these... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rube Goldberg, howd, Agathena

        ...days, having in the past worked on numerous journalistic investigations, I don't think it's quite fair to imply that he and Bernstein didn't do any work in their reporting. Even with multiple secret sources, investigative reporting is tough. Most tips lead to dead-ends, it's essential to suss out the agenda of those who feed you information, much of the work that doesn't appear in the final product is dogged pursuit of documents that may require becoming an amateur expert in some field in order to comprehend, and lots of people you need to talk to take much nudging and cajoling before they will talk to you.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:49:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Sounds like Woodward has joined the anti-news (6+ / 0-)

    The glee for out of context quotes and the disinformation it enables is ruinous.  Once again hours and days of television talking heads analysis will likely be made from a partial sentence misconstrued, with the facts all the while at everyone's fingertips.  This e-mail is like a reverse Watergate tape.  Warning the dumb asshole he was embarrassing himself was giving him way too much credit.

  •  Perino's tweet is priceless as it shows her igno- (11+ / 0-)

    rance, but she's always been pretty proud of that ignorance.

    It is unbelievable that someone like Woodward that defended/cheered GWB in his bullying of the press, bullying/manipulating the military, and on spying on many innocent Americans is now all offended by these "threats."

    Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

    by DefendOurConstitution on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:56:29 AM PST

  •  incredibly sad state of affairs... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Demeter Rising, walk2live, howd

    Notice how no real substance is being discussed...  

    just the sanitized soap opera antics between corporate media and 1600 pa ave economic director...

    One should aften ask how is any of this in the best interst of anything but soloistic egos of men gone awry.?.

    Evidence that contradicts the ruling belief system is held to extraordinary standards, while evidence that entrenches it is uncritically accepted. -Carl Sagan

    by RF on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:56:34 AM PST

  •  Oh lookie, Woodstein has found an Obama WH scandal (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Remediator, lcbo, Bridge Master, The Nose

    aka...

    "Threatgate"
    Or, perhaps, this GOP water-carrying hack is an attention whore of the highest order, who is setting a new standard for villager idiocy.

    Sam Seder pretty much destroyed this twerp during the opening of his show yesterday: http://majority.fm/...

  •  Egads (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    New Jersey Boy, The Nose

    Reporter gets an ouchie.  Misunderstandings become news.  

    Meanwhile, Rome burns.

    The robb'd that smiles steals something from the thief. -- Shakespeare

    by not2plato on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:04:46 AM PST

  •  It borders on sacrilegious (9+ / 0-)

    that Robert Redford played this doofus in the movie.

  •  Generally speaking, Rahm Emanuel created a... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade

    ...shitload of unnecessary acrimony between Democrats and the D.C. press corps. It was part of his "legacy." What you're seeing playing out, today, is just one small episode in a "greater truth." This shit's been going on for generations, and it's pervasive on both "sides," amongst politicians and the press.

    "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

    by bobswern on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:05:30 AM PST

  •  I don't know why Bob Woodward has (4+ / 0-)

    lost his mind, only know that he has.   Read the whole story this a.m., read what other journalists have responded with....with most of them it is a HUH?  They all claim that people have told them to their faces that they too would regret as a journalist being wrong or fact selective or both.

    Also Woodward insinuating that he knows that the reason why Obama didn't send an aircraft carrier someplace is due to sequester is more Woodward out of his mind.

    The President would never address why he makes any kind of troop movements, not ever....because that exposes our current methods to our enemies and makes us vulnerable or could even encourage attack.  Woodward has now crossed over into troop and nation endangering idiot!  He doesn't know why the President doesn't make the troop movements that he (Woodward) says should be made, I don't either, only the most successful Commander in Chief in my lifetime knows why he is making the troop movements he is making right now.  That sort of goes with the job, always has, and can kill a lot of people and destroy what the whole world thinks of you easily, just ask George W. Bush.

    •  You are wrong (0+ / 0-)
      Also Woodward insinuating that he knows that the reason why Obama didn't send an aircraft carrier someplace is due to sequester is more Woodward out of his mind.
      That the carrier is being pulled back because of the sequester, is what Obama and the navy claims, it's not something Woodward made up.

      Woodward is an idiot for suggesting breaking the law (not that that would really stop Obama or his predecessors, not sending that carrier is mostly for show), but he didn't make this up.

      The President would never address why he makes any kind of troop movements, not ever....because that exposes our current methods to our enemies and makes us vulnerable or could even encourage attack.
      This is a fantasy as well. The US faces no real threat at this time. Whether there are one, two or no carriers in the Persian Gulf is completely irrelevant.

      The only thing threatening the US is a ridiculously bloated defense budget. Basically the military-industrial complex leeching hundreds of billions from the American tax payers each year.

  •  I find it heartbreaking that this was the person (4+ / 0-)

    who valiantly exposed the Watergate scandal, and then over the years morphed into a self-regarding, disingenuous hack who would do something like this for attention.

    From bravely crusading as a real journalist to making stuff up on talk shows; how the mighty have fallen.

    "Why reasonable people go stark raving mad when anything involving a Negro comes up, is something I don’t pretend to understand." ~ Atticus Finch, "To Kill a Mockingbird"

    by SottoVoce on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:06:50 AM PST

  •  Wow unbelievable (10+ / 0-)

    that people don't see that email for what it was.  Telling Woodward that he professionally will regret making claims that are not true.

    And of course serious journalists everywhere would rather people think otherwise since it is a better story.

    •  I agree, BDA, but for different reasons, LOL! Now (0+ / 0-)

      no commenters should be able to deny that the Administration is willing "to cut entitlements."

      Sperling made mention of this several times in his email.

      So, even if it's not enough to shut up the right-wingers, hopefully, it illuminates for some what this Administration's intentions are, in regard to 'cutting entitlements.'

      Maybe this pathetic saga will play itself out soon.  {{{sigh}}}

      [I don't even want to think about this dragging out for the better part of 2013.  :-)]

      Mollie

      "If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

      hiddennplainsight

      by musiccitymollie on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 03:02:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Woodward's insistence that POTUS was the one (0+ / 0-)

    that insisted on sequester is laughable when we know that his favorite Orange Man (no relation to our orange Satan) got 98% of what he wanted.

    Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

    by DefendOurConstitution on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:10:43 AM PST

  •  Glad the email came out. It tends to make (8+ / 0-)

    Woodward look petty.  DC will focus on the spat rather than the specious argument that Woodward is making.  It would be great to burst the DC media bubble and expose them for how shallow they are.  The media were definitely at fault for uncritically promoting Bush's war in Iraq. So why should their opinion on entitlement spending and any budget issue be taken seriously?

     

    Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

    by khyber900 on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:11:15 AM PST

  •  Is Perino self-aware enough to grok Irony? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Remediator, Minnesota Deb, lcbo, The Nose

    naaaaah.

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:15:25 AM PST

  •  Perino is still cheap (0+ / 0-)

    and Woodword is a liar.

    What do you mean someones at the door?~Bin Laden

    by Max Runk on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:17:11 AM PST

  •  :) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Remediator

    Haha Bob-can you imagine if George Bush had to say he couldn't invade Iraq because of budget cuts-Woodward just got schooled.

    Organizing is what you do before you do something, so that when you do it, it is not all mixed up. A. A. Milne

    by hulibow on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:18:10 AM PST

  •  It's Nice to Hear (0+ / 0-)

    that the Village Idiots are giving the Words "Bengazi" and
    "Friends of Hamas" a well deserved Vacation.

    It appears that the Ignorance and Stupidity driving
    their comments hasn't changed at All.

    On Giving Advice: Smart People Don't Need It and Stupid People Don't Listen

    by Brian76239 on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:22:20 AM PST

  •  All the President's Men (4+ / 0-)

    is probably my favourite film of 1976. Now it's been tainted by the real Woodward (and to a lesser extent, Bernstein) and his hackery in the last 10 years. I'm not sure I can watch that movie anymore without thinking what an assclown this guy has turned into, and probably always was. And it's not like Redford portrayed him as some kind of brilliant reporter crusading for the truth.

    Ah well, there's still Ben Bradlee, Howard Simons and Harry Rosenfeld, who at least in the flick came off as proper newsmen. Unlike this drama queen.

  •  Woodward takes the quote out of context. Of ... (0+ / 0-)

    ... all reporters to do that. Talk about a Scalia-like scuttling of his own reputation!

    2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

    by TRPChicago on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:23:16 AM PST

  •  Come on, Sperling! (0+ / 0-)

    Everyone knows that Washington pundits can be wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong again, and there never are any consequences for it. No consequences means no regrets.

  •  Standard tactics (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Minnesota Deb, howd

    I don't know why anyone could be surprised.

    This is just more of the same, and has been identified as such over and over, especially during the Rmoney campaign.  Credit Czar Rove with making this tactic standard practice.

    Simply put, accuse the other side of doing what you do.

    That's it.  One could use more words to make it sound more profound and complicated, but it isn't.

    Nixon made an enemies list and intimidated the press.  Rove and the Bush gang favored their outlets and froze out honest reporters, resulting in a thoroughly cowed press that accepted their bullshit as part of normal debating and joined the chorus in leading us into two unnecessary and botched invasions that killed thousands of our troops for no gain in security and wasted lives and money purely for the purpose of increasing profits for defense contractors and corporations.

    So, here we go again.  Take what the Republicans did.  Accuse Democrats of doing it.  Rely on the lapdog, uncritical news organizations that your intimidation tactics have created over the years to treat it as a "he said, he said," story.

    Job done.  Money and power protected.  Lies believed.

    What else is new?

    In Washington, whenever anyone does something wrong, everyone else gets punished.

    by Noziglia on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:27:05 AM PST

  •  This (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    miracle11

    has all the substance and fake outrage to become the Republican's new BENGHAZI!

    REGRETZI!

  •  Goofy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Minnesota Deb

    " .... But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim. ... "

    Woodward ought to regret the "moving the goalpost" accusation, because it is a stupid thing to say.

    Memory is short, but not THAT short. Back in 2011 Senator Bob Menendez publicly predicted that the so-called "supercommittee" would become deadlocked with a stacked deck of Republican members opposed to new revenues. Everyone recognized that new revenue was on the table back in August 2011 when the deal was agreed to, and if new revenue was a sticking point from the very beginning, there can be no "moving of the goalpost." now.

    The whole sequester doomsday machine was put in place because there was no agreement on increasing revenue as part of deficit reduction. The Obama administration has consistently called for new revenue in conjunction with spending cuts.

    Saying otherwise now is the worst sort of revisionist history buggering.

    If it ain't broke, break it.

    by tomwfox on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:33:17 AM PST

  •  I hope the White House openly mocks him now (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bridge Master

    But that's me. As the email shows, they have a little more restraint than that.

  •  Important story... (0+ / 0-)

    ...thanks to Daily Kos and other "news" sites for keeping me so well-informed concerning Bob Woodward's dust-up with the White House.

    "The highest patriotism is not a blind acceptance of official policy, but a love of one's country deep enough to call her to a higher plain." --George McGovern

    by Progressive Pride on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:42:43 AM PST

  •  BACKFIRE: the GOP base loves bullies (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bridge Master

    Every story showing Obama pushing people around and being like a King is a net GAINER for him with the GOP base.

    They hate the weak and powerless, and love the strong-man.  

    True or not true, who cares?   It's good politics for Obama- let the Village freak out that he is too strong, too pushy, to mean yadda yadda yadda.   Its a winner.

    Out of my cold dead hands

    by bluelaser2 on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:49:23 AM PST

  •  dana perino (0+ / 0-)

    is a right wing boob.  how much think would a perino think if a perino could think at all?  another bimbo for bozos in the gop.  i'm sure putin follows her tweets.

  •  A whole lot of nothing! (4+ / 0-)

    Whatever respect I had for Woodward (and there wasn't much left) is now gone completely.  He must have though that he wasn't getting enough press.  A friendly warning that he might be shading the truth a bit, and might be sorry about it later, is not the same thing as a threat. Poor Bob, I shudder to think how he'd react to a real threat if he takes on so over this.  But I suppose anything to get on the front of CNN!

  •  Woodward and Breitbart, peas in a pod. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2

    How can it be a "free" market if you're forced to work for it?

    by Troubadour on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 08:03:10 AM PST

  •  Please Proceed Bob. (3+ / 0-)

    I think this one goes down in the books as the last throes of Woodward.

    He is going to be cut off...and for good reason.  He kept deep throat secret for 40 years.  He couldn't keep an email secret for 40 hours.

    Time to quit Bob.

    "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - Melissa Harris Perry

    by justmy2 on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 08:09:41 AM PST

  •  The WH has got to get smarter (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Supavash

    Woodward is a devious Republican hack, always has been, and the only deviation from the party line is that he puts himself ahead of party, hence was a useful addition to Carl Bernstein's team.  

    When you deal with any kind of devious hack, you don't get mad, you get even.  And Sperling completely forgot this.  You don't lose your rag with these people or they'll take the first opportunity to make themselves look good at your expense.  And if you have gone out on a limb, you don't then apologize because you just look weak.  Better to look strong and stupid than weak and stupid.  But don't blow up in the first place, Gene.

    •  Not sure what they did wrong... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brooke In Seattle

      Read the e-mail trail... I thought they were pretty kind & tame. Woodward is off the rails here, and it'll be painfully obvious to everyone once they read the actual e-mail exchange. Maybe there is some other e-mail or a phone call or something?

      Freedom isn't free. So quit whining and pay your taxes.

      by walk2live on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 08:39:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  WH & Woodward (0+ / 0-)
      Woodward is a devious Republican hack, always has been, and the only deviation from the party line is that he puts himself ahead of party, hence was a useful addition to Carl Bernstein's team.  
      Not really, he's just your usual Washington DC establishment centrist hack. No Republican party stooge, that's a mischaracterization.

      The Obama administration has been happy to use Woodward to serve their goals, leaking information they wanted to get out there, whilst rewarding Woodward with court gossip. Yet for some reason Woodward got mad, hence this silly outburst.

  •  Context is everything (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Minnesota Deb, Brooke In Seattle

    If I tell someone that he's going to "regret" crossing Interstate 95 on foot at rush hour, does that constitute a threat?

  •  She's not as smart as she'd like you to think. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Minnesota Deb

    Somewhere in Moscow tonight, Vladimir Putin was reminded that Dana Perino didn't know the difference between the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Bay of Pigs ... and he smiled.

  •  I See... An Ed Show segment tonight... (0+ / 0-)

    higher ratings for MSNBC and lower ratings for CNN.

    CNN is desperately trying to have a 'middle ground' where none exists.  

    MSNBC sees the need to point out the laser like focus of the GOP to ruin the country to enrich themselves and their friends.  

    Fox, is still getting richer with their corporate contributions, and toeing the Party (GOP) line.

    People will decide.  There is now enough misery in the real world for people to pay attention. Every time the GOP attacks the economy the great uninvolved are now paying attention, finding sources and listening to information presented.  

    As biased reports are contradicted with original documents, people are moving farther from the GOP in disgust.  

    ... the watchword of true patriotism: "Our country - when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." - Carl Schurz; Oct. 17, 1899

    by NevDem on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 09:25:44 AM PST

  •  Something terrible is imminent (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    justmy2, VeloDramatic

    Until the crisis ends, we hold vigil.

    "I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights." (From "You Said a Mouthful" by Bishop Desmond Tutu - South African bishop & activist, b.1931)

    by FiredUpInCA on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 09:36:16 AM PST

  •  My first inclination (0+ / 0-)

    is to say he's an idiot, but I have to cut him a little slack, because after all, Nixon.

    Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well-warmed, and well-fed. --Herman Melville

    by ZedMont on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 09:38:54 AM PST

  •  He's trying to gin up a scandal. His books aren't (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FiredUpInCA

    selling, I guess. What a worm.

    48forEastAfrica - Donate to Oxfam> "It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness." Edna St.V. Millay

    by slouching on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 09:49:54 AM PST

  •  Bob's doctor also threatened him (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FiredUpInCA

    He told him if he didn't quit smoking, he'd regret it.

    I don't know what's been trickling down, but it hasn't been pleasant---N. Pelosi

    by Russycle on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 12:18:08 PM PST

  •  Here's a threat for Bob... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Supavash

    If you don't stop being a hagiographical stenographer for Eric Cantor, I'm not going to read your books or your newspaper anymore.  (And if I do, I'm certainly not going to pay any money for the privilege.)  

    Thanks to President Obama, the Iraq War is Over!

    by Viceroy on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 12:32:34 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site