Reply With Quote
lol...fox news// liberal freakout machine..
I read too many articled penned by the liberal freakout machine.
lol...fox news// liberal freakout machine..
The Night Planet Liberalism Turned on Bob Woodward
Matt Welch|Feb. 27, 2013 11:29 pm
It has been a special night on Twitter for those of us who take a perverse interest in the way that ideologically aligned journalists and politicos will pack-attack critics of a sitting American president. Seems that Washington Post investigative-journalism legend Bob Woodward crossed a bridge too far when, in talking about reaction to his narrative-debunking Feb. 22 piece pinning the origination of the sequester directly on a White House that had vociferously denied paternity, has now gone on to dish on a "senior White House official" (later identified as White House Economic Council Director Gene Sperling) who "yelled at me for about a half hour" about the op-ed, and warned that "I think you will regret staking out that claim."
Sperling's "threat" (if you can call it that) ranks a bit low on the things-to-be-worried-about totem pole, and Woodward is hardly an infallible source (here's my 2006 column comparing him to Judith Miller), but the reaction tonight from the leftosphere has been something to behold. A sampling:
Josh Marshall, TPM:
Who goes birther first, Scalia or Woodward?
David Plouffe, recently of the White House:
Watching Woodward last 2 days is like imagining my idol Mike Schmidt facing live pitching again. Perfection gained once is rarely repeated.
Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation:
Smart interns & young folks have no idea who Woodward is but dc establishment freaked about his critique of WH & sequester.
Neera Tanden, Center for American Progress:
My amateur advice: stop cooperating with Woodward in the first place.
Jason Linkins, Huffington Post:
I think Woodward will find people will stop yelling at him the very minute he decides to stop sucking so much at his job.
Dan Froomkin, Center for Accountability Journalism:
Telling egotist Woodward "I think you will regret staking out that claim" isn't a threat; it's just not realistic.
Matthew Yglesias, Slate:
Woodward's managed to make me suspect Nixon got a raw deal.
Last edited by DarrinS; 03-01-2013 at 12:29 PM.
The amount of demonization of Woodward by Obama allies (both in the admin, and elsewhere among Washington establishment), is astonishing to watch.
Hypothetically, making good on a threat might very well look like this.
But I gave you a direct link to the email thread in question. Safe to say you were not interested in hearing it from the horses mouth. You liked the Obama threatens Woodward narrative.
I've pointed out just how ignorant you are already, but I'll go further.Woodward was a bush insider???? Wow...Just wow... I got nothing...It's all you
Woodward was granted the same access to Bush that he did with Clinton so he could write a similar book about the policies of his early presidency like he did with Clinton. 9/11 happened and of course the book's focus changed drastically. The result was Bush at War -- which you didn't read. So yeah, if you're going to call Woodward a Clinton insider, you have to accept he was a Bush insider as well.
You can whine and try to deflect, but you can't change facts.
Furthermore, had you read Bush at War, which you didn't, you'd know it was hugely positive regarding Bush and his administration. So much so that it pissed off the liberals back then too and subjected Woodward to the kind of treatment you see today. No one told you or Darrin how to feel about it then, so you just carried on with your lives.
I wasn't stating Woodward was a Clinton insider. I think all his books were based on research. He didn't research any of his books with a final political point he was aiming at. It had very good reviews. However it wasn't as Bush bashing as his next three, so I could see where you might not of liked it.
I don't know the tone of most of those books because I never read them.
state of denial was a decent read.
If Woodward did not understand that the point of the sequestration was to force both sides to negotiate something else at least from the rhetoric coming out of that last 'crisis' then I don't know wtf.
That is the only 'lie' I get from the email. What are you talking about?
What this all came from:
In Woodwards book, he states that Jack Lew went to Harry Reid with the sequestration idea in july 2011.
Reid and Boehner both agreed and claimed victory
Oct 2012 The sequester is a bad idea. Both parties start to try and distance themselves and Obama states in the debate that it wasn't something he proposed but Congress proposed.
Feb 2012 On Fox Sunday Woodward states that the sequester was the WH's idea.
Then in an op-ed, Woodward said BHO was moving the goal posts for stating that the sequestration was about higher taxes and spending cuts. In his book, he states that it was only about cuts.
That was what this phone call and email to Woodward was about...
Who says I didn't like it?
At least I read it. You had to have someone tell you it was favorable. You probably fact checked my claim.
They're all quite good as long as you keep in mind Woodward's rather myopic focus on inside baseball.
Yeah I did check and no I had not read that one. I've read a few of his books and liked them both. I did, however notice a. he hates rumsfeld and b. used mostly facts. So there was one where on the Chris Mathews show he hailed it as a statement of bush's failure. I read that book and came away that it wasn't as anti bush as they were making it out to be. I think it was state of denial.
Well I think the contrast between Bush at War and State of Denial is so glaring that one could come to that conclusion, but that's really a reflection of the administration itself and how badly they handled Iraq compared to the more immediate aftermath of 9/11.
It comes from the email.
When the sequestration was put out last year, the rhetoric was all about getting a new deal. The entire point was about forcing a negotiation that would include both. If the discussion is about what actually is in the sequestration then sure but I don't see the point of disputing that in the first place. Its not exactly a contentious issue.
I don't care whose idea it was as much as I do that noth parties voted for the idea overwhelmingly.
Well put. Still, Obama is trying to blame this on the Repubs with the notion that it was their idea. It turns out now either he was lieing or his inner cabinet are going rogue on him.
Well sure anyone could monday morning quarterback but Bush did leave Obama with a pretty good start towards a stable country.
He focuses on the inner meetings and inner circle dialogue. That's why I liked them.
Actually there are many military and civilian leaders who told Bush Iraq would be an epic cluster . , Cheney knew it would be before his hardcore neocon conversion.
Honestly why care. Half the GOP is saying that it's Obama's fault. The other half is saying that it's a good thing.
What the GOP should be looking at is that the majority of Americans blame them for the gridlock. Both the WP-AP and ABC polls are coming out uniform on that. This blame game does nothing to change that.
It's quite the fall. It took tremendous GOP leadership control to walk the line to strangle the super majority in 2009. Now the GOP has splintered and none of them have a clue what to do. I still hold out hop we get a third party out of this.
neverrmind
Are you talking about the decision to invade Iraq or the actual policy of invading and afterwards?
Sure there were alot of people who thought it was going to be a quagmire. Small footprint; dismantling the army; etc. But the outcome was as good as anyone could of expected while creating a country not ran by a psychotic mass murdering dictator.
No, it could have been much better much sooner.
Doubt it. I think, like the popular party normally does, the Liberal wing of the Dems are going to overplay their capital. Obama's at 50 percent popularity and probably will start getting lower. In about two months- I bet it'll around 39-42%. Just my opinion.
Historically, the blame goes to the President for this kind of stuff. I don't see it being different this time around.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
