Bob Woodward should be fired
Bob Woodward is a prime example of what a joke “journalism” has become. In case you haven’t been following, Woodward, has been running around declaring that the Obama Administration “moved the goal posts” in asking for revenues to be part of ending sequestration. Officials within the administration have apparently been trying to correct, Woodward, on his false assertion, but it’s been to no avail. Woodward, in showing what a degenerate he’s become refused to accept any additional facts and just continued his lie. To make things worse, he then furthered things by making an ominous claim that the White House “threatened” him. In the following video he does his best to make it sound like he received a vicious email from a top administration official who was trying to silence him. But in actually reading the email he received nothing could be further from the truth. After the video is a copy of the email he received and also his response to this “threatening official.” The communication seems to be pretty cordial. I’ll even save you a little time by giving you the sentence that contains the horrible “threat” that Bob Woodward, received…
” I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim.”
Bob Woodward is trash. In world that increasingly wants people to be measured on merit, he fails miserably. Do yourself a favor, do the world a favor, and call the Washington Post and ask that Bob Woodward be fired. The number is 202-334-6000. Or you can email the executive editor, Martin Baron, at firstname.lastname@example.org. I’ve called them and from what I’ve heard others have too.
”From Gene Sperling to Bob Woodward on Feb. 22, 2013
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.
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”