Posts Tagged ‘Bob Woodward’

The Woodward Ultimatum

March 3, 2013

Ultimatum: The final terms presented by one party in a dispute, etc., to another, the rejection of which could cause a breakdown in relations, a declaration of war, an end of cooperation, etc. Oxford English Dictionary.

Many readers will have heard of the Bourne Ultimatum, a Robert Ludlum-inspired movie in which Jason Bourne engages in a battle to the death with out-of-control CIA agents who are determined to eliminate a man whom they had mentally reconfigured to serve as their hired assassin, but who has now recovered his true identity. Well, last week,Bob Woodward, the pre-eminentjournalist for The Washington Post and one of the two investigators who exposed Richard Nixon for his role in the Watergate break-in, received an ultimatum from the hands of of Obama-sycophant, Gene Sperling, currently serving as the chairman of the Chicago machine-politician’s Economic Advisory Council.

I wrote in a recent column about the incident leading up to this ultimatum, namely Woodward’s fingering of Obama as the original source of the March 1, 2013 sequester. Because Woodward is known as a man who speaks truth to power, and because Woodward has exposed, in this instance, not a conservative, but a liberal lie, Obama and his White House advisers are dripping venom as they seek a way to inject their fangs into a supposed traitor to the progressive movement. Like Jason Bourne, Bob Woodward has reconfigured his own mind to understand the true nature of the sinister threat that now confronts him.

“This is no tempest in a teapot but rather the leak in the dike. Drip by drip, the Obama administration has demonstrated its intolerance for dissent and its contempt for any who stray from the White House script. Yes, all administrations are sensitive to criticism, and all push back when such criticism is considered unfair or inaccurate. But no president since Richard Nixon has demonstrated such overt contempt for the messenger. And thanks to technological advances in social media, Obama has been able to bypass traditional watchdogs as no other president has. More to the point, the Obama White House is, to put it politely, fudging as it tries to place the onus of the sequester on Congress…Killing the messenger is a time-honored method of controlling the message, but we have already spilled that blood. And the First Amendment’s protection of a free press, the purpose of which is to check power and constrain government’s ability to dictate the lives of private citizens, was no accident.” Kathleen Parker, ‘Why the Woodward matter matters’, The Washington Post, March 3, 2013

One may reasonably assume that Bob Woodward’s and Kathleen Parker’s kneecaps are safe, at least with respect to the sequester challenge. But there are other ways for a vindictive president to enforce obedience among the press corps:

“Again, Woodward’s kneecaps are probably safe, but the challenge to his facts, and therefore to his character, was unusual, given Woodward’s stature. And how, by the way, might Woodward come to regret it? Sperling’s words, though measured, could be read as: ‘You’ll never set foot in the White House again.” When reporters lose access to the White House, it isn’t about being invited to the annual holiday party. It’s about having access to the most powerful people on the planet as they execute the nation’s business.” Kathleen Parker, ibid.

Whoops, there go a pair of kneecaps!

Bob Woodward calls out Obama on his sequester lie

February 24, 2013

All politicians circumnavigate the truth – that is one political disease that will never be eradicated. It comes with the territory. When a president of the United States engages in blatant lying, however, on issues that are readily verifiable, there can be only one reasonable explanation. That president believes- in Obama’s case with good reason – that the media will cover up his terminological inexactitudes. They will cover up for a black president what they would not now ever dream of covering up for a president of any other skin pigmentation. And that is contemptible racial discrimination.

Obama failed, however, with respect to his great sequester lie, to take account of one journalist – Bob Woodward of The Washington Post – whose entire reputation depends on speaking truth to power. And once again, in this instance, Bob Woodward lives up to his remarkable reputation.

The Obama-lie under consideration relates to the forthcoming budget sequester – the $85 billion of across the board federal spending cuts that will begin on March 1, 2013 and extend over the coming ten years, for a total cut of $1.2 trillion. The first occasion of this Obama-lie occurred on October 22, 2012, when the President attempted to displace the blame for this initiative onto Congress. The Obama-lie could not be less ambiguous:

“The sequester is not something I’ve proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed.” (Bob Woodward, ‘Obama’s deal-changer’, The Washington Post, February 24, 2013

Obama was supported in this lie two-days later by his chief-of-staff, Jack Lew, who had been budget director during the sequester negotiations in 2011. Again the lie could not be less ambiguous:

“There was an insistence on the part of Republicans in Congress for there to be some automatic trigger. It was very much rooted in the Republican congressional insistence that there should be an automatic measure.” (Bob Woodward, ibid.)

In his extensive research for his book,The Price of Politics, Bob Woodward discovered the big lie. He demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brain-child of Jack Lew and White House congressional relations chief, Rob Nabors.

“Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-Nev). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were already involved. Nabors has told others that they checked with the president bwefore going to see Reid. A mandatory sequester was the only action-forcing mechanism they could devise…the final deal reached between Vice President Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) in 2011 included an agreement that there would be no tax increases in the sequester in exchange for what the president was insisting on, an agreement that the nation’s debt ceiling would be increased for 18 months..) Bob Woodward, ‘Obama’s deal-changer’, The Washington Post, February 24, 2013

So there you have it folks, straight from the typewriter of the hero of Watergate. Whose version do you believe, and why?


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 78 other followers