The Glade 4.0

Bob Woodward says he was threatened by White House
politicalmugshot
Posted by
CNN Political Unit

(CNN) - Veteran journalist Bob Woodward said Wednesday he was threatened by a senior Obama administration official following his reporting on the White House's handling of the forced federal spending cuts set to take effect on Friday.

"They're not happy at all," he said on CNN's "The Situation Room," adding that an e-mail from a senior administration official - who he would not name - communicated a message which caused him great concern.

"It was said very clearly, you will regret doing this," he said.

Woodward penned a 2012 book reporting that the idea for the spending cuts, known as the sequester, originated with the White House. It's a claim President Barack Obama originally denied, but the White House has since acknowledged.

But it was language that he used in an op-ed published over the weekend in The Washington Post that drew what he said was the Obama administration response.

"[W] hen the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts," Woodward wrote. "His call for a balanced approach is reasonable, and he makes a strong case that those in the top income brackets could and should pay more. But that was not the deal he made."

Headlined "Obama's sequester deal-changer," it was widely cited by Republicans seeking to avert the across-the-board cuts without a tax increase.

"The fundamental question here the president has to decide - does he wanna be president of a political party or does he want to be president of the United States?" House Speaker John Boehner asked at a Tuesday news conference. "It is time for leadership."

Obama, however, has argued for an approach that "balances" spending cuts and tax increases.

"I've laid out a plan that details how we can pay down our deficit in a way that's balanced and responsible," he said at an event in Virginia the same day. "We have the plan right on a website, the White House website. Everybody can go see it. It details exactly how we can cut programs that don't work, how we can raise money by closing loopholes that are only serving a few, as opposed to the average American."

While the days now turn to hours before the cuts kick in on Friday, Republicans and Democrats have not engaged in the sort of negotiations they have held before deadlines in previous fiscal crises.

Woodward said on CNN that the White House objection to his reporting has no basis in facts.

"It's irrefutable. That's exactly what happened," he said. "I'm not saying this is a moving of the goal posts that was a criminal act or something like that. I'm just saying that's what happened."

CNN extended multiple invitations to the White House to appear on the "The Situation Room," including after Woodward began his interview, but the invitations were not accepted.

But a White House official who would not speak if named said late Wednesday, "Of course no threat was intended."

The official said the email Woodward referenced "was sent to apologize for voices being raised in their previous conversation. The note suggested that Mr. Woodward would regret the observation he made regarding the sequester because that observation was inaccurate, nothing more. And Mr. Woodward responded to this aide's email in a friendly manner."

The e-mail had Woodward "very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters you're going to regret doing something."

"Let's hope it's not the strategy," he said.

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

The relevant ACTUAL email that was sent to Bob.

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/e ... z2MDI4Zyvm

In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin

1. Woodward's "moving the goalposts" characterization is just so plainly wrong that I question his honesty. Seriously, is there anyone who doesn't realize that more revenue has been the Obama position from day one?

Provisions

Debt ceiling:

The debt ceiling was increased by $400 billion immediately.[2]
The President could request a further increase of $500 billion, which is subject to a congressional motion of disapproval which the President may veto, in which case a two-thirds majority in Congress would be needed to override the veto.[3] This has been called the 'McConnell mechanism' after the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who first suggested it as part of another scheme.[4]
The President could request a final increase of $1.2–1.5 trillion, subject to the same disapproval procedure. The exact amount depends on the amount of cuts in the "super committee" plan if it passes Congress, and whether a Balanced budget amendment has been passed.[3]

Deficit reduction:

Spending was reduced more than the increase in the debt limit. No tax increases or other forms of increases in revenue above current law were included in the bill.[5]
The bill directly specified $917 billion of cuts over 10 years in exchange for the initial debt limit increase of $900 billion.[5] This is the first installment ("tranche") of cuts. $21 billion of this will be applied in the FY2012 budget.[4]
Additionally, the agreement established the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, sometimes called the "super committee",[1] to produce deficit reduction legislation by November 23, 2011, that would be immune from amendments or filibuster (similar to the Base Realignment and Closure).[4][6] The goal of the legislation was to cut at least $1.5 trillion over the coming 10 years and be passed by December 23, 2011.[6] Projected revenue from the committee's legislation could not exceed the revenue budgeting baseline produced by current law. (Current law has the Bush tax cuts expiring at the end of 2012.) The committee would have 12 members, 6 from each party.[5]
The agreement also specified an incentive for Congress to act. If Congress failed to produce a deficit reduction bill with at least $1.2 trillion in cuts, then Congress could grant a $1.2 trillion increase in the debt ceiling but this would trigger across-the-board cuts ("sequestrations"[note 1]), as of January 2, 2013.[3] These cuts would apply to mandatory and discretionary spending in the years 2013 to 2021 and be in an amount equal to the difference between $1.2 trillion and the amount of deficit reduction enacted from the joint committee. There would be some exemptions: reductions would apply to Medicare providers, but not to Social Security, Medicaid, civil and military employee pay, or veterans.[4][5] Medicare benefits would be limited to a 2% reduction.[7]

As originally envisioned, these caps would equally affect security and non-security programs. Security programs would include the U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Nuclear Security Administration, some management functions of the intelligence community and international affairs from the U.S. State Department.[8] However, because the Joint Select Committee did not report any legislation to Congress, the act reset these caps to defense (essentially the DOD) and non-defense categories.[9] This became one of the important elements of the fiscal cliff.[10]

Balanced Budget Amendment:

Congress was required to vote on a balanced budget amendment between October 1, 2011, and the end of 2011,[3] but is not required to pass it and send it to the states in order for the debt limit increases to occur. (This is unlike the previously proposed Cut, Cap and Balance Act, which was not enacted, which would have required Congress to actually pass such an amendment).[4]

Other provisions:

Pell Grant funding was increased, but other financial aid was cut. Graduate and professional students were no longer eligible for interest subsidized loans.[11] Repayment incentives will also be done away with after July 1, 2012.[12]

Section 106 of the Budget Control Act amends the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide a two-year Senate budget, adopting in law what would usually be a Concurrent Resolution. Senate Budget Committee Chairman explains in this video.

"My Bad." really... WHY do people immitate JarJar Binks in every day speech?

This is incorrect. The provisions in the Budget Control Act of 2011 did not allow for increases in revenue. That was the deal made by Congress (apparently suggested by the WH) and signed by Obama. Requiring revenue now is moving the goal posts.

Interesting to see all "journalists" writing about how Woodward is past his prime all of the sudden. I thought he was the hero to which they all aspired.

At this point, you're asking, "Why is Conor telling us about this banal give-and-take between a reporter and a nameless aide?" Well, dear reader, on the basis of that email, Woodward is now running around claiming that he was being threatened by the White House. "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," he told CNN. Elsewhere he added, "Suppose there's a young reporter who's only had a couple of years' -- or 10 years' -- experience and the White House is sending him an email saying, 'You're going to regret this. You know, tremble, tremble."

It makes me uncomfortable that Obama has extrajudicially killed American citizens in secret, spied without a warrant on the private information of millions of innocents, blatantly violated the War Powers Act, asserted the power to indefinitely detain Americans without trial, and waged an unprecedented war on whistleblowers. But thank goodness that Woodward is bravely speaking up against the terrifying phrase "I think you will regret staking out that claim." It's so nice to know that you can count on the elder statesmen of journalism to take to TV to voice dissent on the really important stuff. Won't democracy be safer if Woodward gets his way, so that the Obama Administration is both more deferential to reporters and flouts legitimate legal mandates*?

And thank goodness that the movement-conservative press, which cedes to Obama so many radical, easily abused powers, is now speaking up for Woodward as if he's in danger of becoming a political prisoner.

A lot of political journalists, all of whom have dealt with pushback on stories a lot more intense than "I think you will regret staking out that claim," reacted to this story by expressing skepticism of Woodward. How has Breitbart.com reported that? "Media Gang-Tackle Iconic Journalist to Save Obama." (To save him from what?) On Los Angeles talk radio station KFI, I heard a host Wednesday night insisting that Woodward is more scared now than he was during Watergate.

The funny thing is that, personally, I'd love for Woodward to get permanently angry at Obama and spill all the scandalous, source-burning information he doubtless possesses, rather than staying on good terms with the president so we can all read an access-rich but fawning book in two years. What I refuse to let stand is the inane narrative that bravely standing up to Obama looks like what Woodward is doing, as opposed to what Charlie Savage or Glenn Greenwald do. Woodward is involved in an insiders' spat with Obama, who he wants to wield more power.

If conservatives want to take Obama to task for interfering in the ability of the political press to hold him accountable, there is plenty of fodder. To seize on this story instead is a sign of either deep ignorance or profound cynicism, or perhaps both at the same time. And just as the conservative media is showing its worst side as this unfolds, so too is the rest of the political press, which obsesses over the personalities and the perceptions that surround sequester negotiations in a way that gives everyone involved ample incentive to keep ignoring the substance. Its bad enough to cover elections with such a "horse race" emphasis; now the process of governing itself, even in the immediate aftermath of an election, is being covered that way.

*Woodward has argued that Obama should unilaterally ignore sequestration requirements of the BCA with respect to certain defense spending. --RD

Hey, Bob, you can’t say we didn’t warn you. We knew this White House was capable of attacking even the great Bob Woodward for telling the truth.

You could have listened to Michael Barone. He saw it coming even before Barack Obama was elected. In October 2008, he penned “The Coming Obama Thugocracy.”


I experienced it when DOJ press harpy Tracy Schmaler yelled at a half dozen reporters, as the White House official did to you, about my under-oath testimony involving the New Black Panther dismissal. Her victims included Pete Williams, Quin Hillyer, and Sharyl Attkisson. After Schmaler’s thug tendencies were well known, she was nurtured and promoted within the Thugocracy instead of being canned, as any administration before this one would have done to her — Republican or Democrat.

Schmaler has since been appointed a Made Man of sorts, entering the rarefied private sector air of David Axelrod’s shop.

Schmaler’s story is typical of this gang. Her shouting, threats, and rants at reporters would have rendered her unqualified to serve in the press shop of a state department of agriculture.

But there is something unique about the Obama White House. It borrows tactics and standards from the darker figures in history — threats, projection, unrepentant dishonesty, towering columns in stadiums, and even bloody mayhem like Fast and Furious hatched for political purposes.

Richard Nixon seems like a fluffy kitten compared to this crowd.

Which brings us back to you, Mr. Woodward. What’s happened when you, of all people, are the bad guy?

Had you ventured into any cocktail party in Silver Spring or Takoma Park just a few years ago, you would have been treated like a hero — liberal Washington’s very own version of Pittsburgh Pirate Bill Mazeroski, who with one swing of a bat brought down the reviled Nixon. “Maz” never had to pay for a meal in Pittsburgh after that October afternoon in 1960 when he delivered a World Series.

That used to be you, Bob. But now, you’re the problem!

You, of all people, threatened by a Democrat White House.

And where are your defenders? Where are the new hipster reporters of the left to defend you? Where have all the flowers gone, they used to ask.

But this is serious stuff. When the elder statesman of the industry that guards the First Amendment is threatened by the White House, it marks a dangerous turn.When other “reporters” join in, it is even more dangerous.

Perhaps this will be enough for the usual phalanx of fools at places like Mother Jones, TPM Muckraker, and The Nation to at last wonder if we’ve come full circle back to those days of righteous triumphs in August 1974. Outrage toward abuse of power was so in vogue. Where is the righteous indignation that seized a nation beginning in May 1973?

Maybe it was all a show, Bob.

Did the wave you started have more to do with the “R” after Nixon’s name than principle?

With you, I’d say it was principle. But with the rest of the liberal left, it’s starting to look like poor Dick Nixon got a raw deal compared to this mischief of rats.

Honestly, how do you read that schlock, NF? You strike me as a bright guy, so I don't understand how you aren't instantly turned off by the obvious insincerity and hyperbole of it all. I could never make it through more than a few paragraphs of the lefty version of that crap during the Bush years.

Sorry, I shouldn't have taken a shot at the article you posted, NF. I was expressing honest bewilderment, but it was an obviously (though unintentionally) condescending comment to make, and given our well-established political views, a semi-personal back and forth was inevitable. So anyway, as a senior White House official might say, "My bad."

Stop calling it "revenue increases." That's bullshit. They're tax hikes.

In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin