Love him or hate him, Bob Woodward is what we call a journalist. A real journalist. He’s old school, which means he came from a time when reporters of all political stripes lived to expose corruption. And yes, even though they’ve always generally been liberal, they knew how important really speaking “truth to power” was.
That was then. This is now. While Chris Matthews focused on his leg tingles for the past four years, and while the rest of his pals in the media slurped up whatever sick dish of propaganda the Obama administration slopped into their bowls, they neglected to tell voters the true nature of our commander in chief. He’s the type of guy whose inner circle threatens reporters mafia-style when you dare to disagree with them:
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.
Got that? You voted for hope and change, and instead you got a thug administration trying to push around Bob Woodward — the man who helped bring down Nixon.
Now ask yourself: If the Obama administration is willing to tell Bob freakin’ Woodward “you’ll regret this,” then who else have they shut up along the way? You know he’s not the first.
Now ask yourself: How safe do you feel living under an administration that tells investigative journalists they’ll “regret” taking a principled stand on an issue — especially when that administration has a drone program that gives one man the authority to kill Americans?
Now ask yourself: What kind of administration would use an argument over a 3 percent budget cut (“cut” defined as going deeper into debt, but at a slower rate) to allow hundreds of illegal immigrants out of detention centers. There weren’t any paper pushes making $85K in these federal agencies? They HAD to let illegal immigrants go … before the sequester deadline even hit?
For those late to the game, this all started when Woodward wrote ‘Obama’s sequester game-changer’ for the Washington Post, in which he called out the administration for lying to the American people about sequestration’s inception.
[T]he automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors — probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government.
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 directly involved.
The Obama administration didn’t like that. At all. It’s hard to threaten airport delays, the release of illegal immigrants from detention centers, spiking jobless rates and a host of other economic maladies all on Republicans when a guy like Woodward won’t play along.
Even worse (and this appears to have happened after the threats), Mr. Woodward went completely rogue on MSNBC, highlighting that if the worst of President Obama’s predictions were to come true, it would essentially be a case of premeditated pain since the commander in chief has the power to prioritize essential services and get things done. A leader would find a way.
But Barack Obama is not a leader. Instead, what we have is “madness.”
“People’s heads are about to explode about all of this. What the hell is going on here? And it’s very confusing. I’m not sure the White House understands exactly what happened in all of these negotiations at the end of 2011 with the sequester and the Super Committee and who knows what else because they were on the sidelines. I think it’s possible to take one example here where President Obama came out and acknowledged we are not sending the aircraft carrier Truman because of the budget agreement … 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 Bush saying “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 … because of some budget document”? Under the Constitution the president is commander in chief. … We now have the president going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement saying, “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.”
Can you say “Nixonian”? I can.