If it hasn't been
clear for some time now, Bob Woodward has one again
done something so stupid and manipulative as to show he has no credibility as a reporter and, in doing so, makes me wonder why the hell I suffered through his atrociously boring books on the Bush White House. Recently Woodward took to the news with the story that he was told by a "very senior" Obama Administration official that he would "regret" his story about Obama and the sequester. Though he tried to portray this as some kind of Nixonian strong-arm tactic against a reputable journalist, his emails with White House economic advisor Gene Sperling reveal Woodward to be nothing but a lying, quote-mining fraud.
Here is the original email from Sperling to Woodward with the portion in question highlighted:
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
This was Woodward's response:
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
Sounds pretty cordial, right? Well, this is how Woodward recounted the events:
It was said very clearly, you will regret doing this... It makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters 'You will regret' doing something that you believe in.' I think if Barack Obama knew that was part of the communications strategy—let's hope it's not a strategy, but as a tactic—he'd say look, we don't go around saying to reporters, you will regret this.
So has Bob Woodward finally burned away his last vestiges of decency? I find that this is a good test: Is Sean Hannity
sympathetic to your cause? If so, then the answer is yes. So here's to hoping this amoral creep will no longer be taken seriously.
