Famed Watergate journalist Bob Woodward caused quite a stir when he claimed a senior White House official made him feel uncomfortable by telling him he would "regret" continuing to question the president's handling of the sequester.
Politico has released the email exchange in question. The notes between Woodward and President Barack Obama's economic adviser Gene Sperling could certainly be perceived as more cordial in tone than threatening. You decide.
Sperling starts his email apologizing for raising his voice in an earlier conversation. He says Woodward should rethink his comment that Obama was "moving the goal posts" by requesting additional revenues on the sequester. Sperling writes:
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...Not out to argue and argue on this latter point. Just my sincere advice. Your call obviously."
Here's how Woodward responded to Sperling:
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... Best, Bob
Just yesterday someone was talking about how the right doesn't allow anyone to step out of line. Well just look how the LEFT is throwing one of their all time hero's under the bus. Thanks for the example.
I'm asking myself why Bob Woodward, of all people, would need to exaggerate or lie about this. We know what the note says, we do not know what Sperling said to him on the phone. Sperling is not my idea of a "very senior aide" either. I seriously question the veracity of the White House cya.
There is a price for "unlimited access" you want in you play by the rules.. Ok we both got "heated up" Peace! Two professionals acting like such. Some light weights here perceive this lib/conservative ploy..they are too dumb to know how the game is played. Better to stir controversy and create a story about controversy that an issue.
BTW Woodward's earlier comment about the Obama keeping an Aircraft Carrier in port due to the sequeste sends one big signal ! Netanyahu's new coalition it too weak to pull off a strike against Iran and our Sec. of Def has got to get settled in. Were a strike against Iran pending the ship would be steaming full blast to the gulf there is no way Israel can proceed w/o our in flight fueling support and Isreal's Sec of Def. has made it loud and clear that they are working hand in hand with the Defense Dept .)
@PNWest - 1) In the CNN interview, Woodward NEVER said "I was threatened"... he said it disturbed him that a WH spokesperson would tell him he "would regret" reporting about the sequestartion... 2) Woodward didn't start this rumor, CNN did by calling what happened to Woodward a "threat"... of course, the GOP had to glom on to it as quickly as possible without even checking facts first... typical of partisan BS artists. 3) Woodward even said that he doubted Obama knew about the email, and didn't think Obama would approve of someone telling him he would regret writing an article about sequestration.
Take a look at the actual interview and see for yourself. Woodward was extremely diplomatic in the telling of what happened.
I would not question Woodwards veracity, but I would take heed behind any innuendo's promulgated by this WH. We have a congenital Liar at the helm, with his stooges being of the same corrupt Chi-town political philosophy.....Watch your back jack!
Yes, it's glad to see that evidence to the contrary you still believe the false narrative that fit your preconceived notions. Even with the actual emails that were in question that were the source of the threat being released and showing there was no threat you can continue to soldier on as if there really was. Because that's how you view the world. Not how it is but how you think it is.
The problem with Obama is that he HATES the Constitution and the fact we have 3 branches of government, not just one. A terrible inconvenience that he can't just do whatever he wants. He wants to be supreme emperor.
Well, if you've dealt with him in the past then you're probably better at calling it than me. People like that truly make me sick and scared where this nation might be headed. I don't consider myself paranoid but with this seemingly apathetic response to the slow erosion of our liberties has me wondering if people even desire freedom anymore.
Absolutely. I imagine Woodward has information that could cause heads to roll in the highest echelons of power. To neutralize him lends credence to whatever he has to say . To ignore him could be catastrophic for the administration . Woodward is the gold standard in journalism Despite the release ofthe seemingly innocuous e-mail, there is a story behind this.and it 's not pretty
I'm sure Woodward and Sperling are now, and have been cordial. That email does nothing to change any threats. As most people in corporate America, emails are public. I don't believe that cordiality was any more sincere than the threats earlier leveled. The email really means nothing, and a non-denial of Woodward's point reinforces Woodward's original assertion about the sequester.
Lol, little or no threat and now we get to hear all the right wing conspiracies. The veracity from the right that Obama draws is absolutely ridiculous. He's not a great President, but my god, you'd think by the comments that he was the devil himself and that he bent over Jesus on national TV. Politics isn't sports, you don't have to be a cheerleader for your 'side' and accuse anyone who isn't a cheerleader some 'INO', con, or lib.
The problems in Washington have nothing to do with DC, and you'd need to look no further than these boards to prove it.
I heard the interview this morning and Woodward exaggerated slightly but the media took his exaggeration and exaggerated even more. He didn't seem real worried about anything happening to him but did play up that "you're going to regret this" part. Getting information from news sources now is like being 3/4 the way done with that old telephone game we played in grade school.
I may have missed something, but how do we know this email is the threat Woodward was talking about? The email is innocuous enough, but is it a real email, or was the threat made in the "yelling", or another form of message? And what is a "grand barain"? Does it hurt?
Certainly sounded like a threat to me and this is apparently not the first time reporters or journalists have been threatened with a backlash if they report something that is not flattering to the President. He is so thin skinned that he will and has shunned certain reporters who did not do what he wanted.
Because Politix is just news blurbs from other sources generally I took the time to read everything i could find on the subject to date. Once I had done so I came back here and thought to myself, the left will say no it wasn't a threat and the right will say yes it was a threat. Business as usual.
What I think it was, was a reporter getting under the skin of a bureaucrat and a healthy adversarial situation ensued. I want the Press and Government at each others throats. We have far far much buddy buddy between the press and any Government. The job of the press is to monitor the govt and expose them warts and all regardless of party and let the public make their minds as to who is telling the truth.
Barack Husssein Obama has been given sainthood by the lefties. If you are not in lockstep with his desires you are nothing to them and they will attack anything you say or do. Woodward received his warning from a "friend" in the White House. In short he was told, "you ain't got no more access to this administration."