27 Feb

Woodward: “Madness…I haven’t seen in a long time”

                                       

sequester-cartoon-varvel

YouTube Preview Image

From Real Clear Politics

Bob Woodward blasted President Obama on Wednesday morning for deciding to recall an aircraft carrier from the Persian Gulf because of impending budget cuts, calling the decision “a kind of madness.”

Woodward: Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying ‘Oh, by the way, I can’t do this because of some budget document?’ Or George W. Bush saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to invade Iraq because I can’t get the aircraft carriers I need’ or even Bill Clinton saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to attack Saddam Hussein’s intelligence headquarters,’ as he did when Clinton was president because of some budget document? 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.

The GOP has proposed giving Obama flexibility on the upcoming cuts

WASHINGTON — Congressional Republicans are preparing to counter increasingly dire warnings from President Obama about the impact of automatic budget cuts with a plan to give the administration more flexibility in instituting $85 billion in cuts, a proposal they say could protect the most vital programs while shifting more of the political fallout to the White House.

Obama will have none of it.

The plan is vigorously opposed by the administration, which said Monday that it would do little to soften the blow to military and domestic programs. But it is also dividing Democrats, with lawmakers from the states facing the deepest cuts signaling that they may be prepared to go along with Republicans if it means avoiding indiscriminate cuts to military programs and social services.

With just three days left until the across-the-board cuts called sequestration are scheduled to begin, administration officials continued to describe the consequences in alarming terms, even as there was little evidence of serious negotiations with lawmakers to reach a deal to avoid them.

Household income has fallen 8.2% under Obama. We have had to suck it up and do without.

Obama cannot do without even a 2.4% cut.

A reasonable President would act to minimize the alleged impact of the coming cuts.

Not Obama. He is bent on maximizing the damage because he is not getting the obeisance he demands .

That is madness.

UPDATE

Woodward says he was threatened by the White House

Bob Woodward said this evening on CNN that a “very senior person” at the White House warned him in an email that he would “regret doing this,” the same day he has continued to slam President Barack Obama over the looming forced cuts known as the sequester.

CNN host Wolf Blitzer said that the network invited a White House official to debate Woodward on-air, but the White House declined.

“It makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters, ‘You’re going to regret doing something that you believe in,'” Woodward said.

“I think they’re confused,” Woodward said of the White House’s pushback on his reporting.

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Deception and Lies, Disasters, Economy, Liberal Idiots, Military Budget, Politics, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Wednesday, February 27th, 2013 at 1:57 pm
| 804 views

75 Responses to Woodward: “Madness…I haven’t seen in a long time”

  1. Greg says: 1

    The decline in household income didn’t begin with the year 2009. It began in late 2oo7, during the Bush administration. Median household income dropped by 3.6 percent during 2008—the biggest single year drop of the recession. The plunge was finally halted under Obama, in mid-2011. Look at the graph that accompanies the Investors.com article that was cited up above.

    I don’t know why Woodward would suggest recalling an aircraft carrier from the Persian Gulf puts the nation at risk. Aircraft carriers are routinely recalled from the Persian Gulf for a variety of reasons, without disaster immediately ensuing. If Obama is using the occasion to exaggerate a point about sequestration, Woodward is pretty much doing the same thing.

    Actually, the word “recall” is a bit misleading. There’s currently only one carrier group in the Persian Gulf. What has been cancelled is the scheduled deployment of a second carrier group. Refer to this FOX News article, dated February 6.

    If the GOP wants to give the President more flexibility to manage the impact of automatic sequestration cuts, they should do it rather than just flapping their lips about it. It would be a genuinely useful response to the situation.

    ReplyReply
  2. jj says: 2

    ^^ So who had control of the House and Senate in 2007???????? Blame Bush all you want, the democrats had both houses his last two years and even had a Super majority when Obama came to power. Take off your ideological blinders.

    ReplyReply
  3. Bobachek says: 3

    It’s all manufactured hysteria by Obama and company….It operates in much the same way as unions do, you have to give your followers something to pissed about or scared of to keep them in the herd…You take those two factors out of the equation and people start thinking for themselves.
    That is not what progressives want…

    ReplyReply
  4. Greg says: 4

    @jj, #2:

    ^^ So who had control of the House and Senate in 2007????????

    Democrats—for the first time after 12 consecutive years. But more to the point:

    What bills were passed during 2007 that had any detrimental affect on the economy?

    What regulatory changes were made during 2007 that had any detrimental affect on the economy?

    Can anyone name any?

    The groundwork for the worst recession since the Great Depression was apparently laid during a 12 year period when republicans controlled both the House and the Senate–the last 6 of which also had a republican in the White House. Either that, or the mere fact of a shift of power somehow magically cause the entire economy fall apart, without anything being done to cause it.

    Maybe the causes are too complex to assign blame based on selected segments of a graph, and on who is president during the time they cover. If so, maybe we should quit trying to do so.

    ReplyReply
  5. every one you hear are appall by his schizophrenia,
    this on all issue

    ReplyReply
  6. Tom says: 6

    I remember when the right absolutely despised Bob Woodward. This was two, three weeks ago, at least.— Jeffrey Goldberg (@JeffreyGoldberg) February 28, 2013

    ReplyReply
  7. Tom
    good for you, it’s good for your memory to practice remembering.

    ReplyReply
  8. Tom says: 8

    @ilovebeeswarzone:

    Good point. Ask the author if he remembers being a Bob Woodward and Washington Post fan.

    ReplyReply
  9. Richard Wheeler says: 9

    Tom With the way the right is suddenly fawning over Woodward ya think they’ll soon be in praise of the dreaded lamestream media?? Nah

    ReplyReply
  10. Tom says: 10

    @Richard Wheeler:

    Tom With the way the right is suddenly fawning over Woodward ya think they’ll soon be in praise of the dreaded lamestream media?? Nah

    “You betcha”

    ReplyReply
  11. Smorgasbord says: 11

    When you want to increase the budget a certain amount, but the other side will only let you increase it less than you want, how is that a cut in the budget, and where is the budget? There is no cut, and there is no budget. The amount they are going to spend this year will be higher than it was last year. Let’s quit going along with the propaganda media and start calling things what they are. Another example of this is that we are not a democracy, we are a REPUBLIC, and we should call it that so any democrat who hears it said for the first time might ask you why you call the USA a republic. You can then have them do two things:

    (1) Say the Pledge of Allegiance.
    (2) Tell you what type of government they pledge allegiance.

    Calling the USA a democracy only confirms to the propaganda media that their brainwashing is working.

    FAIRY TALES THE DEMOCRATS WANT YOU TO BELIEVE
    (1) The USA is a democracy.
    (2) There is a budget.
    (3) There is talk of CUTTING the budget.
    (4) obama is trying to bring the USA our of a recession.

    There are too many others to list them all.

    ReplyReply
  12. Smorgasbord says: 12

    An easy way to save money is to close all of the military bases that the military doesn’t want, but the politicians want them in there states for the jobs and Federal money.

    ReplyReply
  13. Budvarakbar says: 13

    I call BS — this is – imo – a sort of false flag crap to deflect from obie’s lack of actually ever doing anything except being a campaigning puppet on vacation — and also to try to recoup some media bonafides in the eyes of the people that are paying attention.

    If Woodie was sincere he would be naming names and challenging other members of the pravda media to start fessing up to the coercion they are (most likely) being subjected to and naming names. In addition, he would be clearer on when this “kind of madness” was equalled or exceeded — with facts and reasons.

    He has also given obie a pass on the “threat”

    In reality Woodie this is “a kind of madness” that you have never seen in the US — Germany, Japan, USSR, Red China, Uganda, most muslim countries at one time or another – YUP – but not here until the “collective” idiocity of morons voting for a totally illegitimate marxist / islamist — SOB — front man for the commie party USA – the puss filled CPUSA.

    Come on Woodie – put your indignation up for real — get your book(s) going on a sequal to “All the Presidents Men” — of course in this case you will need a lot of help probably ending up with a best selling ten to twenty volume set if ya really did YOUR job — you could start out with Ayres and the Weathermen — the Dunham’s commie past and the olde lady being a BANK exec – hmmmm? – DETAILS please — Uncle Frank? – full CPUSA history and details please — why are so many of the people from obie’s “past” – dead?? (especially family?)– then continue on with the phony black islamist Wright – masquerading as a Christian with his FAUX Church preaching racist hate with no interference from any “authorities” who should have been investigating hate preachers — more details and history PLEASE — then on with all the fraud related to birth certs, passports, travel records, citizenship records, draft registration, fraudulent social security registration (hmm? what about all those hollow point ammo the SS admin bought???), college records – both admission and grades – and uh? where was he?? — hmmm? — hey Woodie – why don’t you find out WHY no one remembers the clown even being at Columbia – (I could find people that remember me at my College – 1964 through 1969 — I think most of them are still alive — oh and I have grade transcripts – and as I think of it – certified BC and a baptism cert, original Social Security card issued in 1962, passport and travel records, and US Army Commisioning and Honorable Discharge, and DD214 form) — why the ‘ell can it be so hard for an awesome genious like obie to come up with anything legitimate — hmm? — all the millions of $$$ and legion of lawyahs participating in the blockage of records – etc etc etc — trip(s) to pahkistan?

    HEY WOODIE >>> What about “freedom of information?” – hmmm?

    Well that would be enough for the first 3-4 volumes — then you could get on with the Sh-tcago commie(nity) organizing — maybe shake out a few more “just a guy from the neighborhood” types — check with the bath house boyzz — don’t pass over rahmie and ASSociates — don’t pass over Reggie-boy (Reggie LOVE?? — WTF?) — and certainly chase down the rumers? of several bath house ASSociates that just happened to disappear – you know – “clintoon style” – or could that be – “soviet style.” The sudden rise in ILL-inois poly-ticks – the sudden wilting of political opponents — all the “present” votes — the partial birth abortion stuff –A REAL GOLDMINE – and the ‘rat hasn’t even gotten close to the WH. — and you have a couple more volumes —

    ‘ell it would take a whole ‘nother volume just to chronical moochies cinderella story — especially that super high paying horsepittle non-job (or should that be “whore spittal”)

    Dedicate a volume to Sore A$$ — DETAILS DETAILS DETAILS please — full disclosure of DETAILS of activities in Hungary during WWII and since

    Then ya have several volumes to document all the “czars” — all of their activities over the last 5 years — get all their past histories and commie connections — ya may have to start stepping a little more carefully — wouldn’t want to get caught in any of you own snares ya may try (or pretend) to set

    A whole volume could detail all the vacations and golf games — with some particular emphasis on the ‘separate’ flights and vacations — and DO NOT leave out the ‘kids’!. Lots of photos please. No shortage of material — please cut the kid glove BS and get on with calling out the reality of these grifters and the “vast left wing (COMMUNIST) conspiracy” behind them.

    Dedicate a whole volume to the moo-slime bro-hood infiltration and OBVIOUS influence over US policy — name names fellow — cut the coverup —

    A whole volume to the gub-mint motors fraud, the phony bailouts the obvious political disenfranchising of auto dealers all over the country — the cash for clunkers fraud along with distruction of perfectly good used parts for autos and trucks — the phony green energy frauds – on and on — god you democrats and the RINOS really suck — probably two-three volumes here.

    Dedicate the second to last volume to the LSM, MSM etc etc — all the sloppering pea-brains, wet pantie, and trickling leg syndrome FOOLS and the rotten networks and newspaper “agencies” they work for — do a probe on who really owns these pravdas and who is calling the shots — again – name names and DETAILS — who, what , when, how, and where — especially the where — where are these SOB’s and directives really headquartered from – hmmm?

    The next to last volume could consist of a detailed account of your activities and reporting related to obie over the last ten years – but especially in 2007-2008 when you pravda boyzz should have been doing your job of vetting this SOB and his communist puppet masters – instead of building up and covering up.

    Then the last volume could consist of all the reasons that it is really all just george boooschies fault. (and Nixon and Reagan and – and -and) Don’t forget Sarah Palin — she fights like a girl.

    OK Woodie – ya gots your marching orders — the $$$$ potential here is gi-normous — you should have no trouble lining up a nice big slobbering crew of bernsteinite types to help ya research and write up all this stuff — lots of potential retirements could be funded outta this project.

    Get on with it — this admin and the democ’RAT party/Communist conspiracy is for real and needs to be fully documented and exposed (uh — don’t get any on yourself – heh heh heh) — compared to what is going on now in DC (District of Criminals/Communists) >>> Watergate was nothing more than spilled milk at a Sunday school picnic.

    DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN!!! — PLEASE!!!

    Then for your swan song – I assign the following: a 100 word essay on all the dirt, scandel, fraud, and treasonous stuff you MSM clowns mined out of 27,000 pages of Sarah Palin’s e-mails! Full DETAILS – I dare you to need all 100 words!

    ReplyReply
  14. johngalt says: 14

    @Tom: @Richard Wheeler:

    I don’t know much about Woodward. I don’t much watch any news, or even listen to radio programs anymore, and that includes FOX news. What I do know is that when a respected, at least by the left and the “moderates”, causes a political entity to snap back like Obama’s WH has done, it might be time to pay attention to what is being said, rather than to just disregard it(not saying either of you have).

    You both, however, are making light of the fact that Woodward was somehow seen as “part of the MSM” by those on the right, and now the right is putting him up on their shoulders. I believe that you should be paying more attention to what he said, rather than who is supporting it. That’s all.

    ReplyReply
  15. Tom says: 15

    @johngalt:

    I believe that you should be paying more attention to what he said, rather than who is supporting it. That’s all.

    I agree, and I have been paying attention. Has the author of this piece? Consider that Woodward has criticized the President for not ignoring the law he sighed and unilaterally employing the US military as he sees fit:

    Woodward: Woodward: Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying ‘Oh, by the way, I can’t do this because of some budget document?’ Or George W. Bush saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to invade Iraq because I can’t get the aircraft carriers I need’ or even Bill Clinton saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to attack Saddam Hussein’s intelligence headquarters,’ as he did when Clinton was president because of some budget document?

    So, John, do you think it’s consistent for the same author who routinely accuses (but never actually proves) the President of planning to employ unlawful force against the American people is now complaining that he’s not doing whatever the hell he wants to do with the US military?

    ReplyReply
  16. johngalt says: 16

    @Tom:

    Point taken, Tom. I do think, however, that when someone as respected as Woodward is, especially in the same political envelope as the politician he is discussing, has made that politician angry enough to threaten him, that people should take notice, and not necessarily with the exact issue being discussed.

    As an aside, I’d like to think that something similar happening involving a conservative politician would make me sit up and take notice. I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.

    ReplyReply
  17. retire05 says: 17

    @Tom:

    So, John, do you think it’s consistent for the same author who routinely accuses (but never actually proves) the President of planning to employ unlawful force against the American people is now complaining that he’s not doing whatever the hell he wants to do with the US military?

    You seem to miss the point Woodward was making: that Obama has claimed to have to non-utilize a military asset due to the sequester. That’s bull, and you know it. The sequester is not yet in effect, and Obama has the ability to direct funds for the very purpose he claimed he had no money for.

    Just like Nappy Jan claiming that she would have to relieve up to 5,000 Border Patrol agents since there will be no money to pay for them, and directing that jailed illegals be released from jail because of a lack of funds. Her budget is not so locked in that she can’t pull funds from another program to pay the BP or maintain illegals in jail that are not in jail just for jaywalking.

    ReplyReply
  18. Tom says: 18

    @retire05:

    You seem to miss the point Woodward was making: that Obama has claimed to have to non-utilize a military asset due to the sequester.

    You seem to miss the point I’m making. Please point out where I took issue with Woodward’s widely publicized statements (hey, even the “lamestream’ media (huh huh huh) covered them). I take issue with an author who passes off any and all negatives regarding Obama – even when they’re contradictory – as a reasoned political perspective.

    ReplyReply
  19. retire05 says: 19

    @Tom:

    I take issue with an author who has the audacity to point out any negatives regarding Obama

    There, fixed it for you.

    ReplyReply
  20. Tom says: 20

    @johngalt:

    What I do know is that when a respected, at least by the left and the “moderates”, causes a political entity to snap back like Obama’s WH has done, it might be time to pay attention to what is being said, rather than to just disregard it(not saying either of you have).

    He is very respected in the middle, and probably moreso on the Left. Do I have a problem with his being “threatened” by someone in the Administration? Of course I do. Do I think Obama is behind it? I would find it extremely hard to believe that he would be, given Woodward is beholden to no one professionally at this point and anything he says is widely disseminated. Regardless, Obama is ultimately responsible for his staff.

    Listen, if Bob Woodward criticizing Obama on his handling of the sequester makes him now the voice of reason in the eyes of DrJohn and Retire5, that’s wonderful. We can have a lot of fun with that, if that’s the case. Should I start posting statements Woodward has made in the past and then DrJohn and Retire can come along and give their stamp of approval?

    Let’s be honest, you can’t make blanket condemnations for years about a paper like the Washington Post, how it’s all liberal propaganda, and then turn around and enthusiastically cherry-pick one sound bite by their most famous reporter and expect to be taken seriously, can you?

    ReplyReply
  21. johngalt
    yes the thinking process from the WHITE HOUSE SHOULD BE VERY SERIOUS NOW, AND WOODWARD HAD GIVEN OBAMA A HINT THAT HE IS ON THE WRONG PATH,
    YOU KNOW IT TAKE COURAGE TO DO IT, AND HE KNEW WHAT HE WOULD PUT HIMSELF IN
    THE LINE OF FIRE FROM THE ONE HE WAS USE TO GIVE A COVER FOR AND ANY EXCUSES TO COVER HIS ACTIONS, BUT HE SAW THE TIME HAS COME TO BREAK FROM IT.
    AND USUALY THIS KIND OF SEPARATION HAPPEN AFTER A LONG TIME,
    LETS SAY 4 YEARS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT PLUS THE NEW ELECTION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE CONDUCT FROM HIS LEADER HE WOULD HAVE WANTED SO MUCH TO BE HONEST AND ABLE TO LEAD,
    HE COULD NOT TAKE IT ANYMORE, BECAUSE HE REALIZE, GEEZ THAT’S HURTING AMERICA
    AND THE PEOPLE, AND I AM AMERICAN, I HAVE A POSITION TO STAND AND EXPOSE HIM HIS ARROGANCE, HIS SELFISHNESS HIS SICKNESS, SO HERE IT IS, HE DID WHAT AN AMERICAN WOULD DO, AND YES THE CONSERVATIVES HAVE REACH BEHIND HIM, BECAUSE HE DARE TO EXPOSE THE
    WRONG DOING FROM OBAMA WHO ANSWER BY THREATS TO THE ONE HE SHOULD BE THANKFULL
    LIKE YOU SAID

    ReplyReply
  22. Tom says: 22

    @retire05:

    There, fixed it for you.

    No, you pretended to quote me and changed what I wrote. In other words, in typically idiotic fashion, you proved you’re a dishonest liar again.

    ReplyReply
  23. Aye says: 23

    @Tom:

    No, you pretended to quote me and changed what I wrote. In other words, in typically idiotic fashion, you proved you’re a dishonest liar again.

    We’ve seen that sort of behavior before:

    Seems to be becoming a pattern.

    ReplyReply
  24. Richard Wheeler says: 24

    Tom,J.G and Ret.05 Re Woodward you all make sense.
    IMO he is one of the most honest and highly respected journalists in America.
    He exposed Watergate and brought down Nixon. He had daily access to the Bush W.H.during Iraq war and wrote 3 books. He personally liked “W” but strongly criticized his early execution of the war, as well as the information the govt. was releasing to the American people.He blasted Rumsfeld.
    If this man’s got complaints about BHO and his admin. I’LL LISTEN clearly.

    As for Dr.J. In my mind he has shown himself to lack any credibility—Herr Dr. has ODS and refuses to self medicate.

    ReplyReply
  25. johngalt says: 25

    @Tom:

    Let’s be honest, you can’t make blanket condemnations for years about a paper like the Washington Post, how it’s all liberal propaganda, and then turn around and enthusiastically cherry-pick one sound bite by their most famous reporter and expect to be taken seriously, can you?

    I would agree that NO, you cannot. However, it should be enough to cause people to sit up and take notice. Especially when other respected journalists are also claiming threats. Those accusations shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand, either, just as they shouldn’t then be taken as gospel by others that there is definitely something nefarious going on.

    ReplyReply
  26. Budvarakbar says: 26

    @johngalt: When he names the threatener – I will believe him — meanwhile – not so much.

    ReplyReply
  27. retire05 says: 27

    @johngalt:

    I assume that Spurling was just doing what he thought was required to protect his boss. But the fact that he actually did make veiled threats against a well respected journalist should give pause to everyone, including the left. If a Democrat president can get by with not having control over his staff, and that staff feels comfortable enough to threaten journalists, that rule can also be applied when we have another Republican president, and eventually we will.

    ReplyReply
  28. retire05 says: 28

    @Tom:

    No, you pretended to quote me and changed what I wrote.

    But we do know what you meant, Tom. You have constantly overdosed on the Obama Koolade and there is not doubt about that.

    ReplyReply
  29. Richard Wheeler
    interesting comment, thank’s for the info,
    until you mess with your personal opinion on our good drjohn
    it was not required or needed, and doesn’t count

    ReplyReply
  30. Tom says: 30

    @retire05:

    But we do know what you meant, Tom. You have constantly overdosed on the Obama Koolade and there is not doubt about that.

    You mean that koolade that makes me write with my typically blind devotion regarding Obama:

    Do I have a problem with his being “threatened” by someone in the Administration? Of course I do…. Regardless, Obama is ultimately responsible for his staff.

    I am not going to deny, nor am I ashamed to admit, that I have much more affinity for Obama than the average FA poster (which in your case merely means I don’t want Obama dead). But unlike simplistic cheerleaders, and anti-cheerleaders, such as you and DrJohn, I don’t look at politics the same way I look at sports. I’m not “rooting” for a team. I vote the candidate that I prefer and hope he/she lives up to my modest expectations, keeping in mind the entire time that politics in America circa 2013 is a pretty unsavory business. Read a little bit about Presidential campaigns: it takes a certain type of person to criss-cross one State after another, delivering the same stump speech over and over, five times a day, for months at a time. There are admirable qualities for sure. It takes an incredible store of endurance and self-belief, but it also takes something that boarders a little too close to crass or needy for my tastes. Whatever that quality in total is, I don’t think saints are defined by it. That’s why I have to laugh at people like DrJohn and yourself, with your cartoonish visions of the pure knights of “your side” vs. Big Bad Obama. As if disagreeing with the President of the United State’s polices isn’t enough, you crave something more personal, and that’s entirely on you and whatever within you is lacking and needs it. At the end of the day, would i rather be viewed as “overdosed on Obama koolaid”, or viewed as you are, a known and proven liar and hypocrite, a person without a shred of honor or dignity? I’ll take the Obama koolaid. Tastes better than all that crow being stuffed down you maw, Ms. Gov’t Handout.

    ReplyReply
  31. TOM
    we know that, good for you if you’re happy with your life,
    but do I detect a sadness in your long explanation,
    some kind of sourness that you are delivering here to CONSERVATIVES,
    UNSATISFIED HOPLESNESS, IT COME’S OUT even that you did not want to show it.

    ReplyReply
  32. Tom says: 32

    @ilovebeeswarzone:

    Very insightful, Bees. Perhaps there is a longing in my post, a gaping need that can only be satisfied by a marathon viewing session of my Sarah Palin’s Alaska DVDs.

    ReplyReply
  33. johngalt says: 33

    @Tom:

    That’s why I have to laugh at people like DrJohn and yourself, with your cartoonish visions of the pure knights of “your side” vs. Big Bad Obama.

    There are very few politicians who I’d paint with that brush (pure knights), regardless of party. I believe that many of the people who first get into politics do so for the right reasons, but somewhere along the way they become enamored with the perks that come with the job, and stop doing what is right.

    That is one reason why I continue to debate and discuss smaller government. Smaller government gives the thieves in DC lower opportunity to screw us “little people” over.

    ReplyReply
  34. Richard Wheeler says: 34

    Tom Before sitting down to your SarahFest suggest your cell be close at hand with speed dial to suicide hotline.She could push you over the edge,
    #30 and #35—Excellent,
    Bees Your beautiful. I mean it.

    ReplyReply
  35. Tom says: 35

    @johngalt:

    That is one reason why I continue to debate and discuss smaller government. Smaller government gives the thieves in DC lower opportunity to screw us “little people” over.

    That is an excellent point. Government is at best an imperfect institution, at worse a necessary evil. There are many things it doesn’t do well, but alas – my curse perhaps – I worry almost equally about the potential vacuum of its absence being inevitably filled by big money interests. Even in our current state, look at the oil industry’s involvement in energy policy, or the defense industry’s involvement with the defense budget.

    ReplyReply
  36. johngalt says: 36

    @Tom:

    Even in our current state, look at the oil industry’s involvement in energy policy, or the defense industry’s involvement with the defense budget.

    Much of the favoritism towards certain industries and particularly certain companies comes in the way of tax breaks. That’s why I’m an advocate for the FairTax. Since it does away with corporate, or business, taxes, it removes that major incentive for companies to hire lobbyists. But your point is noted, absent any change to tax policy.

    ReplyReply
  37. Tom says: 37

    @Richard Wheeler:

    Tom Before sitting down to your SarahFest suggest your cell be close at hand with speed dial to suicide hotline.She could push you over the edge,

    Ha! Rich, thank you for the warning!

    ReplyReply
  38. Tom says: 38

    @johngalt:

    I do think, however, that when someone as respected as Woodward is, especially in the same political envelope as the politician he is discussing, has made that politician angry enough to threaten him, that people should take notice, and not necessarily with the exact issue being discussed.

    John, having had a chance to fully digest the actual correspondence, do you honestly consider this a “threat”?

    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

    ReplyReply
  39. Aqua says: 39

    @johngalt:

    That’s why I’m an advocate for the FairTax. Since it does away with corporate, or business, taxes, it removes that major incentive for companies to hire lobbyists

    Which is why the everyday citizen on the left and right should jump all over The Fair Tax. The tax code is the single most powerful weapon the people in Washington wield.

    ReplyReply
  40. Richard Wheeler says: 40

    J.G. and Aqua Absolutely concur fair tax is the way to go.
    Tom Thanks for posting Spurling’s E-MAIL to Woodward–THREATENING?? That would be considered a LOVE LETTER here at F.A.

    ReplyReply
  41. retire05 says: 41

    @Tom:

    My bad.

    My bad? Is the guy a Valley girl?

    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.

    He believes that Woodward should rethink his comment? Why should Woodward rethink anything? Woodward is not known for making false claims that he cannot back up. Hello? Nixon? And what regret would Woodward have because he reported the facts? How would he regret making those statements? But you don’t see that as a threat? Obviously, although Woodward, contrary to the opinion of left wing press that are piling on him, Woodward viewed that email as a threat that basically said “change your position or you will be sorry.”

    As if disagreeing with the President of the United State’s polices isn’t enough, you crave something more personal, and that’s entirely on you and whatever within you is lacking and needs it.

    Look, I believe that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. has an opportunity to unite this nation in ways that no other president, since George Washington, had. His bi-racial heritage being one of those opportunities. The nation showed that it has moved on from the days of Jim Crow and that a man of color could acheive the highest office in the land. He has not done that, instead, this nation, because of Obama’s policies, is more divided than ever. He has appointed people who have swung the pendulum too far in the opposite direction, people like Eric Holder, who refers to black Americans as “my people” when his people should be every American, not just those whose skin is dark. Whistle blowers have testified that in the DoJ, hate crimes perpetrated by blacks was to be ignored. Obama makes statements about a black kid that was shot by a [white] Hispanic, but says nothing for months about the black on black crime in Chicago that has taken the lives of many small children.

    I don’t disagree with Obama because of what ever reason you have cooked up in your head, I disagree with Obama because I truely believe that he is a Saul Alinksy Marxist.

    a known and proven liar and hypocrite, a person without a shred of honor or dignity?

    I could respond to that, but I won’t. A promise made is a promise kept.

    Tastes better than all that crow being stuffed down you maw, Ms. Gov’t Handout.

    Gee, can we expect the next commercial featuring Tom saying “They can’t put anything on the internet that’s not true?”

    ReplyReply
  42. retire05
    the JOURNALIST COMMENTS ARE ALL ERASE
    AS IF IT HAS NEVER EXISTED, MAYBE CURT HAD ENOUGH OF IT.
    BYE

    ReplyReply
  43. johngalt says: 44

    @Tom:

    Just remember, though, that Woodward himself perceives it as a veiled threat. And when other journalists are coming out as well and saying similar things about their own experiences, that is what I mean when it should be enough for people to sit up and take notice.

    None of the people here, you, me, and anyone else, has the relationship with Woodward or Spurling that they have together, so we don’t really have the context to comment on what the e-mail really means. All we can do is read/listen to what Woodward and Spurling say about it, and go from there. The fact that Woodward felt it was threatening is interesting, even with the content of the e-mail out there for everyone to see, don’t you think?

    ReplyReply
  44. johngalt says: 45

    @Richard Wheeler:

    THREATENING??

    As I pointed out to Tom, we here at FA, and around the net, don’t have the relationship with either of them, as they do themselves, to be able to determine whether or not there was a threat involved. On the surface, it looks to be nothing more than one person expressing concern over another’s position. Quite innocuous.

    However, if Woodward feels it was a veiled threat, that is really what is important here, wouldn’t you say?

    ReplyReply
  45. retire05 says: 46

    @johngalt:

    However, if Woodward feels it was a veiled threat, that is really what is important here, wouldn’t you say?

    Obviously Woodward felt the emails contained at least a veiled threat of some kind indicating retaliation on the part of the administration, or the administration’s agents. That is why he brought it up. The police often investigate situations where say, a woman, feels threatened by something a man says, or does. They don’t initially investigate the person that feels threatened, they investigate the person the woman felt threatened by.

    As you say, others have now come out and said they received the same treatment by this Administration. Including another Washington Post reporter who was digging into the Fast and Furious scandal, and it was even reported by the Huffington Post. Sheryl Akissison, I think was her name.

    ReplyReply
  46. JOHNGALT
    AND RETIRE05
    ALSO THE FACT IS THAT MR WOODWARD HAS BEEN LONG ENOUGH IN THE WHITE HOUSE JOURNALISTIC AFFAIRS THAT HE KNOWS WHAT A THREAT IS AND EVEN IF IT’S WRAPPED UP
    WITH RIBBONS AND APOLOGY

    ReplyReply
  47. retire05 says: 48

    @ilovebeeswarzone:

    Bees, you hit the nail on the head. Do you think that Bob Woodward was not threatened when he, and Carl Bernstein, were investigating Watergate? You can take it to the bank that they were threatened during those long days.

    Woodward never revealed who Deep Throat was. The fact that he has now decided to name names and release the emails tells me he is telling the Administration “Bring it on.”

    ReplyReply
  48. Richard Wheeler says: 49

    J.G As I’ve said before I have the greatest respect for Bob Woodward a true Big “L” Liberal. I’ll listen closely and respectfully to his opinions and concerns.
    That being said, IMO posted E-mail above was certainly not “threatening.”
    I’d be very surprised if he’s asking Obama Admin to “Bring it on” More will be revealed.

    ReplyReply
  49. Richard Wheeler
    I see you are torn between two persons you like and you have to make a decision
    on who you want to stand for,
    maybe if you tell yourself, to stand for the best of AMERICA AND
    THE BEST INTEREST OF AMERICANS,
    IT WILL HELP YOU DECIDE,

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>