One of the liberals favorite reporters has really rattled the cage this time…and all of this controversy seems to be gathering steam as we speak. Seems Woodward has caused some blood being in the water drawn directly from the O-Machine itself! You have to wonder if, in the end, it will really matter in the long run after all is said and done. Time will tell.
To start with you should take a quick glance of this, it has great links inside the story regarding this issue. – BOB WOODWARD: A ‘Very Senior’ White House Person Warned Me I’d ‘Regret‘ What I’m Doing
Here’s the first report, this is what started the ball rolling:
Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward’s ongoing war of words with President Barack Obama’s White House escalated on Wednesday when Woodward took to the set of MSNBC’s Morning Joe to slam the president’s handling of the sequester fight. Woodward said that the president has displayed a “kind of madness” in his decision to make those cuts as painful and deleterious to the nation’s war fighting capability as possible.
Host Joe Scarborough began the interview by asking for a recap of the fight between Woodward and the administration regarding who proposed the sequester first. Woodward informed Scarborough that the White House has conceded that he was originally right and that the idea for sequester came from the Obama administration.
He then turned to the sequester: “I think peoples’ heads are about to explode about all of this, you know, what the hell is going on here,” Woodward said. “I’m not sure the White House understands exactly what happened in all of these negotiations at the end of 2011 with the sequester and the super committee, because they were really on the sidelines.”
Woodward slammed Obama’s decision to announce that sequester cuts would force an American aircraft carrier to not deploy to the Persian Gulf.
“Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying ‘Oh, by the way, I can’t do this because of some budget document’?” Woodward asked incredulously. “Or George W. Bush saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to invade Iraq because I can’t get the aircraft carriers I need.’ Or even Bill Clinton saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to attack Saddam Hussein’s intelligence headquarters,’ as he did when Clinton was president because of some budget document?”
“Under the Constitution, the president is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the president going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement, I can’t do what I need to do to protect the country,” Woodward concluded. “That’s a kind of madness that I haven’t seen in a long time.”
Here’s what happened later in the day:
Bob Woodward has been heralded by conservatives over his insistence that in spite of the White House trying to blame the impending sequester on the Republican-led House, the whole thing was their idea to begin with. On CNN today, Woodward said that the White House is obviously not happy with his reporting, revealing that he received one e-mail from a senior White House official warning him, “you’re going to regret this.”
Kate Bolduan asked Woodward about the response from the White House to his reporting. Woodward said the White House mainly appears to be confused, claiming that one of their rebuttals was to cite a proposal from Republican House leadership that wasn’t actually the sequester. Blitzer said CNN attempted to get someone from the Obama administration on to debate Woodward, but no one wanted to come on.
Woodward made it clear he’s not accusing the White House of any criminal activity, just reporting the facts as he collected them. Blitzer asked Woodward to weigh in on the allegations being thrown in his direction by the White House. Woodward said the administration isn’t happy, revealing that he actually received one e-mail that amounted to a threat.
“It was said very clearly ‘You will regret doing this’… It makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters, you’re going to regret doing something you believe in, even though we don’t look at it that way, you do look at it that way.”
He marveled at how “Mickey Mouse” the whole thing was, while expressing some hope that the White House drops its “irrationality” and actually gets to work preventing the sequester.
Watch the video below, courtesy of CNN:
Now check out what happened this morning concerning this issue:
Lanny Davis, formerly special counsel to President Bill Clinton, announced in a radio interview with WMAL this morning, that his critical articles led to a warning that was eerily similar to the one given to Woodward. This is particularly surprising, because Davis is apparently a supporter of President Barack Obama.
According to the former Clinton administration official, a column he wrote for The Washington Times attracted the administration’s attention and led to a threatening phone call with his former editor, John Solomon.
“The words, ‘You’re going to regret are threatening,’” he explained, in reference to Woodward’s story.
But it is what he said next that will likely shock some political observers.
“That exact thing happened to me — and I haven’t spoken of this before,” Davis continued. “When I had my column ‘Purple Nation’ originally in the Washington Times with the editor John Solomon…he received a phone call from a senior Obama White House official who didn’t like some of my columns.”
Davis recounted receiving a phone call from Solomon explaining the threat. It was apparently a strongly-worded rebuke, alleging that the Times’ credentials could be taken away if the columns were continued.
The former Clinton official declined to share the individual’s name who issued the purported threat and said that he didn’t know if it’s the same individual who e-mailed Woodward. But, he said that the language used was similar.
“The editor called me and said that there was an implication that if you don’t stop running Davis’ column, we’re not going to treat you so well — and the implication was we’ll even take away your credentials,” Davis explained.
Last but not least is this one. You can check it out for more video that goes with this report: ‘Will the White House Make Bob Woodward ‘Regret’ Reporting Obama’s Sequester ‘Lies’?’
POLITICO’s “Behind the Curtain” column last night quoted Bob Woodward as saying that a senior White House official has told him in an email he would “regret” questioning White House statements on the origins of sequestration. The official in question is Gene Sperling, economic adviser to the president. The White House has since pushed back, saying the exchange was far more innocuous than Woodward claims.
We have obtained, exclusively, the exchange. Here it is:
From Gene Sperling to Bob Woodward on Feb. 22, 2013
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.
Do any of you think more and more leftist, so-called reporters will start speaking out and stand with Woodward…or do you think the majority of them will continue to circle Dear Leader’s wagon and protect their messiah? OR do you think all of this is much ado about nothing?
Fire Away – Inquiring Minds Want to Know!