Current Events & Hot Topics

Featured Posts
candlegal
BOB WOODWARD: A 'Very Senior' White House Person Warned Me I'd 'Regret' What I'm Doing
February 28, 2013 at 6:37 AM


Bob Woodward said this evening on CNN that a "very senior person" at the White House warned him in an email that he would "regret doing this," the same day he has continued to slam President Barack Obama over the looming forced cuts known as the sequester.

CNN host Wolf Blitzer said that the network invited a White House official to debate Woodward on-air, but the White House declined.

"It makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters, 'You're going to regret doing something that you believe in,'" Woodward said.

"I think they're confused," Woodward said of the White House's pushback on his reporting.

Earlier today on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Woodward ripped into Obama in what has become an ongoing feud between the veteran Washington Post journalist and the White House. Woodward said Obama was showing a "kind of madness I haven't seen in a long time" for a decision not to deploy an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf because of budget concerns.

The Defense Department said in early February that it would not deploy the U.S.S. Harry Truman to the Persian Gulf, citing budget concerns relating to the looming cuts known as the sequester.

"Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying, 'Oh, by the way, I can't do this because of some budget document?'" Woodward said on MSNBC

"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,' ... because of some budget document?"

Last weekend, Woodward called out Obama for what he said was "moving the goal posts" on the sequester by requesting that revenue be part of a deal to avert it.

Replies

  • DSamuels
    February 28, 2013 at 9:28 AM
    Oh please, the press has been fawning over Obama since he started running in 2007. It's only recently that some have started to actually question what he's doing. There is only hatred when the WH has a republican president.

    Quoting coolmommy2x:

    No I don't think it's OK, no I don't think this WH should do it. I don't think anyone should. Period.



    The press and WH have hated each other for YEARS. It's not new. They're oil and water. It's not new and as long as news is reported on by people, it won't end. It's human nature. And the press can be bullies too. It's not one sided and it's bi-partisan.




    Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

    So it is okay with you when the WH threatens/bullies the press? Or is it that you just do not want this particular WH criticized for it?






    Quoting coolmommy2x:

    Yep. But OP doesn't care, this is just another post to make everyone dislike and distrust the President. It's hardly news.







    Quoting Donna6503:

    This maybe a news flash, the war between the press and politicians is as old as our republic.

  • DSamuels
    February 28, 2013 at 9:43 AM
    Hmmm, very interesting. It appears Woodward isn't the first one to be threatened.....

    http://www.wmal.com/common/page.php?pt=WMAL+EXCLUSIVE%3A+Woodward%27s+Not+Alone+-+Fmr.+Clinton+Aide+Davis+Says+He+Received+White+House+Threat&id=8924&is_corp=0


    WASHINGTON -- Bob Woodward isn't the only person who's received threats for airing the Obama administration's dirty laundry. It seems anyone is a potential target of the White House these days - even former senior members of the Clinton administration.

    A day after Woodward's claim that a senior White House official had told him he would "regret" writing a column criticizing President Obama's stance on the sequester, Lanny Davis, a longtime close advisor to President Bill Clinton, told WMAL's Mornings on the Mall Thursday he had received similar threats for newspaper columns he had written about Obama in the Washington Times.

    Davis told WMAL that his editor, John Solomon, "received a phone call from a senior Obama White House official who didn't like some of my columns, even though I'm a supporter of Obama. I couldn't imagine why this call was made." Davis says the Obama aide told Solomon, "that if he continued to run my columns, he would lose, or his reporters would lose their White House credentials."



    Davis says he does not know if the White House official involved in his case is the same one who is alleged to have threatened Woodward, but he says the language used in both cases is very similar. In any case, Davis says his editor, Solomon, was not worried by the threat.

    "He didn't take it seriously, because he didn't think that could ever happen. He thought it was bluster," Davis told WMAL. "I called three senior people at the White House, and I said, 'I want this person to be told this can never happen again, and it's inappropriate.' I got a call back from someone who was in the White House saying it will never happen again."


    If it did happen again, Davis believes the administration did it to the wrong person.

    "Firstly, you don't threaten anyone. Secondly, you don't threaten Bob Woodward," said Davis. "He's one of the best reporters ever. He's factual. You can disagree with facts that he reports, but he's factual. Don't mess with him about his facts. You can mess with him about the interpretation of his facts, but this is not a reporter you tangle with," he added.

    Copyright 2013 by WMAL.com. All Rights Reserved.
  • KamWorthy
    February 28, 2013 at 10:44 AM
    Bob Woodward is known for being very fair and unbiased when it comes to the truth and lies. Nixon was a Republican, Barack a Democrat. Mr. Woodward seeks the truth, no matter who may be involved...I love an individual like that. I respect him immensely.
    Quoting lga1965:

     Woodward was also threatened when he and Bernstein were digging up dirt on the Nixon Administration during Watergate. I guess if you uncover truths, certain people might want to get even or at least scare you out of continuing your quest for the truth,right? I think that is what is going on. Or is Woodward just on a mission to discredit people, starting with Watergate way back in the70's all the way to the present ? Will we ever know?

  • KamWorthy
    February 28, 2013 at 10:54 AM
    I've seen a few comments both in this post and others regarding this particular member and her history of posting a certain kind of post with perhaps an agenda. Ok, let's say that's true. So? How many of you rely on the HuffPost knowing full well they lean left? How many hang on every word that FOX spews knowing they lean right? Look, the messenger is irrelevant. The meat, the truth is in the message. Stop making excuses to not believe the truth because you don't like the messenger. That's very unwise.
  • Rubberbiscuit
    February 28, 2013 at 11:20 AM

    Maybe we should look at the actual emails to be fully informed:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/exclusive-the-woodward-sperling-emails-revealed-88226.html?hp=t2_3

    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



    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/exclusive-the-woodward-sperling-emails-revealed-88226.html#ixzz2MDASPQj3
  • Rubberbiscuit
    February 28, 2013 at 11:26 AM

     

    So, I don't really see the threat here and wonder if Bob Woodward is looking for attention because he has a new book coming out.  I've always felt BW has an agenda when he speaks.  Maybe he did some good work during Watergate, but he didn't do that alone and he seems to always be looking for a way to relive his glory days. 

    Quoting Rubberbiscuit:

    Maybe we should look at the actual emails to be fully informed:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/exclusive-the-woodward-sperling-emails-revealed-88226.html?hp=t2_3

    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



    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/exclusive-the-woodward-sperling-emails-revealed-88226.html#ixzz2MDASPQj3


     

  • MsDenuninani
    February 28, 2013 at 1:56 PM

     Was going to post this myself, but you beat me to it.

    Woodward is damaging his own credibility as a journalist, I think.


    Quoting Rubberbiscuit:

    Maybe we should look at the actual emails to be fully informed:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/exclusive-the-woodward-sperling-emails-revealed-88226.html?hp=t2_3

    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



    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/exclusive-the-woodward-sperling-emails-revealed-88226.html#ixzz2MDASPQj3


     

  • inspain
    by inspain
    February 28, 2013 at 2:13 PM

    Woodward's a pussy and a tattle-tale.  He's not the first person to be "warned" to keep his mouth shut by a "White House insider", either on the right or the left, and he won't be the last.  Who cares that he got his feelings hurt?  Let's focus on the real players and the real issues.

  • GrannyM.
    February 28, 2013 at 2:24 PM

     

    Here's the tape...it's just politics as usual...Republicans are hyper-ventelating over the fact they can't call the shots...

    http://www.businessinsider.com/bob-woodward-obama-sequester-republicans-2013-2

  • GrannyM.
    February 28, 2013 at 2:27 PM

    I agree....Woodward is over the top on this one...

Current Events & Hot Topics

Active Posts in All Groups
More Active Posts
Featured Posts in All Groups
More Featured Posts
close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN