Time to trash Bob Woodward

.............."Woodward added. “Under the Constitution, the president is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the president going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement, I can’t do what I need to do to protect the country. That’s a kind of madness that I haven’t seen in a long time.”......................

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/b ... z2M7mCjvE9

Blazer Bob wrote: .............."Woodward added. “Under the Constitution, the president is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the president going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement, I can’t do what I need to do to protect the country. That’s a kind of madness that I haven’t seen in a long time.”......................

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/b ... z2M7mCjvE9

Yep he was hero of the left for a long time.

Pretty cool Bob. Threatened by both the Nixon and Obama administration. Valerie Jarret possibly.

Bright side? Woodward could always buy access to the White House again. I think it only costs a cool 500K.

No... it was Gene Sperling

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/28/a ... t-man-was/

Yes, those terrible threats that Woodward claimed that the White House aide Sperling made. Just vicious language. No wonder conservatives are so upset.

"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

And Woodward's reply:
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

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/e ... z2MDWNa8fe
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/e ... z2MDWEird8

The issue of "threats" is just a little side bar to the story.

Do you have any other examples that "trash Bob Woodward"?

Something the Dog Said wrote: Do you have any other examples that "trash Bob Woodward"?

Other examples? I did not provide any. It was a prediction.

(This is one of my favorite places to see what is happening on the left side of the isle: http://www.siliconinvestor.com/subject. ... ctid=55719 )

I haven't looked, but I'll bet there's no shortage of liberal lapdogs out there trashing Woodward and protecting the "thin skin administration". I've never seen a president or administration that can't take criticism to the extent of this one.

Seems there is a pattern of this behavior that is often modeled here as well.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics ... u-20130228