Skip to main content

Noted stenographer, fossil, past-glory-rider and paranoid, Bob Woodward has been reduced to peddling nonsense on Bill O'Reilly's Show.   (Ever since Woodward falsely claimed he was threatened by the Obama administration, he hasn't popped up quite as much on Sunday morning, so he's now slumming in the sleazy part of town.)

Via Steve M., Woodward opines on the IRS matter:

This fiction that somehow it's totally an independent agency is absurd. When George Shultz was the treasury secretary for Nixon, and the IRS commissioner at the time, Johnny Walters, came to see Shultz and said, "The White House wants me to audit this list of Democrats," you know what George Shultz did? He said, "If they want me to do that, they can get a new treasury secretary." He refused to do it. Clearly, in the pipeline, lots of people knew some of this, or should know it.
Game, set and match, Bob.  Obviously, that Nixon audited Democrats must mean that Obama knew about and is directing audits of the Tea Party and Republicans!

It was just weeks ago that Woodward compared Benghazi to Watergate.

Funny -- I don't remember seeing Woodward making those Watergate comparisons about Valerie Plame, the Iraq War or the firing of the US Attorneys.

So we now can formulate Woodward's Rule:

If a Democrat does it, it's just like Watergate.

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

  •  Tip Jar (11+ / 0-)

    The GOP: "You can always go to the Emergency Room."

    by Upper West on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 12:40:38 PM PDT

  •  but but but (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Upper West

    Here no member of the adminstration is even arguably connected to any wrongdoing at the IRS (assuming arguendo that the IRS did anything wrong other than spend too much money on conferences).  So the rule "If a Democrat does it, it's just like Watergate" requires that there be an "it." N'est-ce pas?

    •  The IRS clearly did something wrong, but (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Upper West, Uncle Moji, nextstep, VClib

      there is no evidence that anyone at the WH had anything to do with it.

      The reason that those questions are even being asked is because the IG testified that no one at the IRS would answer the question of who gave the directive to use the methods that singled out conservative groups for differential treatment.  

      The WH should want to get to the bottom of who originated this clearly wrong and improper policy, it seems to me.  Only by finding out who initiated the improper policies can they put to rest the notion that it might have been someone at the WH.    

      •  The IRS did nothing wrong (7+ / 0-)

        They were correctly interpreting the 501c rules, and investigating political parties that were showing suspicious behavior as a group - and remember, not ONE 'Tea Party' group was denied. But one liberal group was.

        It has to start somewhere. It has to start sometime. What better place than here, what better time than now? - Guerilla Radio, Rage Against The Machine.

        by Fordmandalay on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 01:36:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They clearly did something wrong. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nextstep, VClib

          The IG report says that, in addition to using their usual method of looking for anomalies on an application to further scrutinize 501(c)(4), they also decided to single out groups for special scrutiny based on words in the name of the group, and all the words used were words associated with conservative ideology.  That, right there, is indefensible.  The IRS has admitted it treated some groups differently based on the fact that they had a name associated with a conservative ideology.  How you can defend that is beyond me.  

          And no one alleges that the "differential treatment" was denying applications.  But if it was stringing them out for an inordinately long period of time, that's "differential treatment.'

          Any kind of differential treatment by the federal government based on the type of political ideology you hold is so contrary to the First Amendment I can't understand how anyone can defend it.  

          •  I read that they had numerous groups (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            samddobermann

            with Tea Party in their name who were clearly engaged in politics, and several of them were already being asked to provide data about their social welfare activities because of clear evidence they were political entities.  It's kind of silly to support Republican outrage when even NPR mentioned that the Republicans were scrambling to avoid investigations of large groups who would clearly be found guilty of perjury and fraud.  It's all noise to keep the focus off their guilt.

            I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

            by I love OCD on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 02:24:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Maybe because the TP (0+ / 0-)

            applicants didn't show a general social purpose. Maybe because they didn't count organizing and going door to door with Romney material as "political activities." Have you ever thought that a bunch of similar applications done in a very incomplete fashion might be grouped together for scrutiny?

            Since they can act as a tax exempt non profit during the time   their application is being considered I see no problem with the long waits.

            These people have been running tea party candidates, pushing people who were tea party candidates and only grudgingly Romney. What civic purpose did they have beyond politics?

            I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

            by samddobermann on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 04:48:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Watching the hearings today not even dyed in the (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nextstep, VClib

          wool liberals defended the IRS for targeting conservative groups based on political beliefs.

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

          by thestructureguy on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 02:05:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Fordm - the IRS clearly did something wrong (0+ / 0-)

          The President, the Treasury Secretary, the Deputy Treasury Secretary, the Acting IRS Director and many liberal Democrats in Congress have all said that IRS did something terribly wrong. And they did. Why are we still debating this?

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 06:04:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Woodwards Rule has one flaw; (7+ / 0-)

    It assumes proof that a Democrat DID do something, but none of these 'scandals' actually have proof of anything. It should be; If a Republican THINKS a Democrat did something, it's just like Watergate.

    It has to start somewhere. It has to start sometime. What better place than here, what better time than now? - Guerilla Radio, Rage Against The Machine.

    by Fordmandalay on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 12:51:45 PM PDT

  •  One Show Nightly (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Upper West

    Woodward will soon have his own theatre in Branson.

  •  I love how Woodward (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Upper West, viral

    is trying to undermine that which he has always owned--that which he made his damned name on.

    Babbling mindlessly like a demented has-been, in order to try and take the sting out of "Watergate", as it were, rendering it rather meaningless as a concept because of all the goddamn stupid currently being associated with it. Yeah, that's the ticket.

    That SOP seems to have gone a long way toward undermining impeachment as a concept, starting with President Clinton (though it didn't eliminate it as a 'danger', per se, it certainly took the teeth out of it as far as the public is concerned, IMO).

    Ah, but you know FOX--if it worked once, it'll work 49 more times. At least.

    "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

    by lunachickie on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 01:31:18 PM PDT

  •  "Lots of people knew some of this, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    viral, Upper West, samddobermann

    or should know it"

    This is a curious statement, it is a statement of fact without fact.  Woodward is stating what he believes happened

    Lots of people knew some of this.
    and what he believes should have happened
    or should know it.
    but he does not appear willing or able to detail his statement with specifics because the generic "lots knew some" does not add to a conspiracy, and the "or should know it" is a preference of Woodward's, but still does not meet the grand conspiracy test.  

    This is a different statement from "Some knew of an illegal act, instigated at the behest of the President, and failed to stop it."  which was Watergate.  Woodward seems to want to conflate the two, and oddly, he took a pass on the entire Bush/Cheney administration while he had access.  He had an all-access pass to B/C, what will become the historically Worst Administration of the last century and he missed the historical relevancy bus.

    Bob Woodward is a charlatan and a hack, and an embarrassment to real investigative journalists.  He is now just some sad irrelevant ninny lying about hate e-mail from some Obama administrative milquetoast on the GOP tv network.

    "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of the United States of America -9.75 -6.87

    by Uncle Moji on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 01:34:28 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site