Cigar
02-28-2013, 12:51 PM
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/imgs/2013/130228-bob-woodward-makes-bizarre-claim-that-he-was-threatened-by-white-house.jpg
From Legend to Laughing Stock: Bob Woodward Cites Bogus 'Threat,' Calls Obama 'Nixonian'Published at the Politico site, this obsequious report (the writers also backed Woodward's view on Obama as bad guy in the sequester debate) drew wide mockery on the Web last night, even from some on the right. The "threat" appeared no different from someone simply warning another that they might be embarrassed if they continue with their current line of action or thinking. This was it in its entirety: "I think you will regret staking out that claim.”
Dan Froomkin calls the whole affair in a tweet: "Bob Woodward's Mad Hatter tea party with Allen and Vandehei:...All of them puffed up and delusional." A writer at Atlantic Wire observed: "We hope Woodward never gets an email in ALL CAPS." Even the Daily Caller admits they got played by Woodward.
As for Woodward charging that Obama was becoming Nixonian. I guess except for ordering multiple break-ins, paying hush money, suggesting that a think-tank's office get firebombed, destroying evidence and more.
Meanwhile, we are waiting for Bob to call a press conference and declare either 1) "I am not a kook" or 2) "You won't have Woodward to kick around anymore" or maybe 3) "Follow the dummy." (Should he be known henceforth as Bwah Woodward?) Or, a la The Godfather, he's petrified that he will wake up tomorrow and find in his bed a horse's...ass.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/173129/legend-laughing-stock-bob-woodward-cites-bogus-threat-calls-obama-nixonian#
Conservatives Regret Taking Woodward’s ‘Threat’ Story Seriously
Now that the correspondence between Bob Woodward and the White House has been revealed (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/exclusive-the-woodward-sperling-emails-revealed-88226.html?hp=t2_3) as tame and cordial, conservative commentators are reacting with disappointment to the veteran journalist's claim that he was threatened over his sequestration reporting (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story.html).
Politico on Thursday posted the emails (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/exclusive-the-woodward-sperling-emails-revealed-88226.html?hp=t2_3) between Woodward and White House economic adviser Gene Sperling, who told Woodward, "as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim."
"Looks like we were played," The Daily Caller's Matt Lewis wrote (http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/28/bob-woodward-trolled-us-and-we-got-played/) Thursday morning.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/conservatives-regret-taking-woodwards-threat-story-seriously?ref=fpa
Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed
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
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
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/exclusive-the-woodward-sperling-emails-revealed-88226.html#ixzz2MCqi37Wv
From Legend to Laughing Stock: Bob Woodward Cites Bogus 'Threat,' Calls Obama 'Nixonian'Published at the Politico site, this obsequious report (the writers also backed Woodward's view on Obama as bad guy in the sequester debate) drew wide mockery on the Web last night, even from some on the right. The "threat" appeared no different from someone simply warning another that they might be embarrassed if they continue with their current line of action or thinking. This was it in its entirety: "I think you will regret staking out that claim.”
Dan Froomkin calls the whole affair in a tweet: "Bob Woodward's Mad Hatter tea party with Allen and Vandehei:...All of them puffed up and delusional." A writer at Atlantic Wire observed: "We hope Woodward never gets an email in ALL CAPS." Even the Daily Caller admits they got played by Woodward.
As for Woodward charging that Obama was becoming Nixonian. I guess except for ordering multiple break-ins, paying hush money, suggesting that a think-tank's office get firebombed, destroying evidence and more.
Meanwhile, we are waiting for Bob to call a press conference and declare either 1) "I am not a kook" or 2) "You won't have Woodward to kick around anymore" or maybe 3) "Follow the dummy." (Should he be known henceforth as Bwah Woodward?) Or, a la The Godfather, he's petrified that he will wake up tomorrow and find in his bed a horse's...ass.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/173129/legend-laughing-stock-bob-woodward-cites-bogus-threat-calls-obama-nixonian#
Conservatives Regret Taking Woodward’s ‘Threat’ Story Seriously
Now that the correspondence between Bob Woodward and the White House has been revealed (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/exclusive-the-woodward-sperling-emails-revealed-88226.html?hp=t2_3) as tame and cordial, conservative commentators are reacting with disappointment to the veteran journalist's claim that he was threatened over his sequestration reporting (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story.html).
Politico on Thursday posted the emails (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/exclusive-the-woodward-sperling-emails-revealed-88226.html?hp=t2_3) between Woodward and White House economic adviser Gene Sperling, who told Woodward, "as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim."
"Looks like we were played," The Daily Caller's Matt Lewis wrote (http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/28/bob-woodward-trolled-us-and-we-got-played/) Thursday morning.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/conservatives-regret-taking-woodwards-threat-story-seriously?ref=fpa
Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed
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
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
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/exclusive-the-woodward-sperling-emails-revealed-88226.html#ixzz2MCqi37Wv