Bob Woodward is taking on the President. Again. Except this time they're fighting back. Well, threatening, anyway. "You will regret doing this," a senior White House official told him.

This is in response for him pointing out (and rightfully at that) that the President was the one behind sequestration in the first place, and saying it was "a kind of madness" for a president to say he couldn't deploy a carrier in support of operations because of a budget. In the amount of time one can say "what the fuck?" Bob Woodward has gone from a respected journalist to a "right-wing hack" in the eyes of many of the media. They're turning on him en masse, a seemingly coordinated effort to suddenly marginalize and denigrate one of the most respected and tenured journalists of our time.

Oh, and when you're a Democrat-led administration and you've lost MSNBC, you've probably fucked up:



Anyone think the White House isn't way out of line here? Anyone think that wasn't a threat?

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

Conservatives Regret Taking Woodward’s ‘Threat’ Story Seriously

Now that the correspondence between Bob Woodward and the White House has been revealed as tame and cordial, conservative commentators are reacting with disappointment to the veteran journalist's claim that he was threatened over his sequestration reporting.

Politico on Thursday posted the emails 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 Thursday morning.

RedState editor Erick Erickson was also surprised after reading the emails:

And of course, the email was referenced in Politico.

How does any of that change the fact that a reporter is calling out the white house for obvious lies that other media are willingly ignoring, and for his efforts to get out the actual facts, the white house is putting some sort of pressure on him not to report the truth?

Bob Woodward has been riding on past glory for decades. He had his moment in the sun. He's spent the last 40 years trying to get that back. He's been a bit of a hack for many years.

Truth? Maybe Pres Obama did come up with the sequester idea, but the Repubs went along. Hell, Boehner even claimed he got 98% of what he wanted in the deal. They voted for it, and as they control the House, it is their job to come up with something to avoid it. Obviously, they want it to happen or they would do just that. Their problem is nobody is letting them get away with blaming the Pres for them not doing their jobs.

As for not deploying a carrier because of budget constraints, it happens. Hell it happened to me back in 19-fucking-72. I don't recall an impending emergency or unfolding crisis that would demand immediate dispatch of that kind of resource. Perhaps I'm out of touch, but deploying a carrier is a large expense and it's cheaper to let current assets stay on station than to rotate a new one in, which is probably what we're talking about here. For a fucking Squid, that sounds pretty uninformed.

Yes, I've seen the e-mail. There are plenty of other links floating around that I didn't link to. Sorry for failing to put an exhaustive list up. Still, the fact of the matter is he was threatened for failing to fall in lock step with this administration's rhetoric.

Don't agree with me? Fine. But just saying, as a mod, I think you will regret doing that.

(No, not really. Of course not really. But it's hard to imagine something like that not being a threat. Which is exactly my point.)

There are threats, and there are threats. In this case, I see someone apologizing for the 'loud' phone call, and then warning someone that he is on the wrong side of the issue and will 'regret' it because he will be publically discredited, which is what is happening. He tried to sensationalize what was a pretty mild reproof and now he's having to retract.

The media (including the 'respected' Bob Woodward) were pretty cowed during the Bush administration and failed to report lots of things. While it's nice to see them grow a bit of a spine now, they still have an obligation towards truth IMHO. Most of the Main$treamMedia are very much in ratings mode. I continue to SMH at the RW claims of 'liberal media bias' though. It'd be nice to see some of that.