Bob Woodward: Yes, the sequester was totally the White House's idea

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why on Earth would the President veto a measure that would allow him to make the cuts easier on Americans?

It's not like the veto would make the cuts go away. Is there more in this measure that the article isn't telling us?

I believe the reason is the that Dem plan involves tax hikes and spending cuts, while the Rep bill here involves just spending cuts but allows the President to decide where to make those cuts. He'd rather not make $85 billion in cuts, but get to $85 bil in deficit reduction through a combination of cuts and tax increases.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

They burned that bridge a month or so ago when they decoupled a grand bargain approach in the what to do with Bush tax rates armageddon.

[kentonio]

No, they absolutely feel threatened.

Sure they do.

Also, I never hated him. I read his book Bush at War, and thought it was excellent.

Unlike Reaganites who still remember Saint Ronnie calling Woodward a liar.

Why on Earth would the President veto a measure that would allow him to make the cuts easier on Americans?

The Republicans willingly signed up to sequestration because they thought the Dems would ***** out and cave rather than let it happen. Now they're facing the stark consequences to things they actually care about, and instead of compromising (which let's not forget was the whole point) they're trying to drop the responsibility in Obama's lap so they can continue to blame him for everything that results. If they had any balls, they'd bite their lips and do some real dealing, instead of just trying to pass the buck.

Hmmm who should I believe a once great journalist or a never great poster.

If you think I'm the only one calling Woodward an idiot over this, then you clearly haven't been listening much. Oh and by the way, please stop being a little ***** and delivering these childish little sniping comments, if you want to call me a **** feel free to just do so, then I'll be happy to reciprocate.

[PLATO]

I believe the reason is the that Dem plan involves tax hikes and spending cuts, while the Rep bill here involves just spending cuts but allows the President to decide where to make those cuts. He'd rather not make $85 billion in cuts, but get to $85 bil in deficit reduction through a combination of cuts and tax increases.

Yes, but it appears his choice is going to be between not controlling the cuts and controlling them as it appears the sequester is going to happen.

[PLATO]

The Republicans willingly signed up to sequestration because they thought the Dems would ***** out and cave rather than let it happen. Now they're facing the stark consequences to things they actually care about, and instead of compromising (which let's not forget was the whole point) they're trying to drop the responsibility in Obama's lap so they can continue to blame him for everything that results. If they had any balls, they'd bite their lips and do some real dealing, instead of just trying to pass the buck.

I could buy into this if the last crisis had had some "balance". The last one was just tax increases. I think the Republicans are willing to let the sequester happen if there is no real movement on spending cuts or entitlement reform.

Maybe it is just me, but it sure looks like the White House wants their cake and eat it too.

[PLATO]

If you think I'm the only one calling Woodward an idiot over this, then you clearly haven't been listening much.

I have to agree...Woodward is looking a bit over the top here. After reading the text of the email, I think Woodward has an agenda. I didn't see anything wrong with it as far as tone. I don't think it was a threat.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, but it appears his choice is going to be between not controlling the cuts and controlling them as it appears the sequester is going to happen.

I'm guessing the political thinking is brinksmanship - let the uncontrolled cuts happen and have public opinion force the Repubs to accept the Obama plan (or at the very least accept some tax increases).

[PLATO]

I'm guessing the political thinking is brinksmanship - let the uncontrolled cuts happen and have public opinion force the Repubs to accept the Obama plan (or at the very least accept some tax increases).

I think so too. Obama has been doing way to much "campaigning" to really be doing anything other than trying to set up the Republicans for the fall. Once it happens, he can tell everybody "See, I told you so...EVIL REPUBLICANS did it!"

Honestly, I think the republicans would look at taxes if Obama would just let them know what he is willing to do on entitlements.

Hence my "My way or the Highway" comment.

[DinoDoc]

I'm guessing the political thinking is brinksmanship - let the uncontrolled cuts happen and have public opinion force the Repubs to accept the Obama plan (or at the very least accept some tax increases).

Seriously what uncontrolled cuts are supposed to happen?

[DinoDoc]

(or at the very least accept some tax increases).

[DaShi]

Woodward started his career off with a bang at the Post. While he has generally been a good reporter, he has spent a career trying to live up to his accomplishments of the early 1970's. Now at 70 years old, he wants nothing more than to end his career in the limelight.

This is pretty much the impression that I've been also getting from his behavior as of late.

[Tupac Shakur]

It's not just Bob Woodward.

Woodward's Not Alone - Fmr. Clinton Aide Davis Says He Received White House Threat

Not news: White House threatens journalist

Why Bob Woodward's Fight With The White House Matters to You

New sequester battle: Woodward vs. White House

The White House Is Right, Bob Woodward Will Probably ‘Regret This’

The Most Openly and Transparently Thin-Skinned Administration in History

[DaShi]

The White House threatens reporters. A lot. It is sort of a humblebrag to say that people with titles as lofty as "Assistant to the President" and with titles as lowly as "deputy press secretary" have used the F-word in conversations with me. Both White House officials and journalists tend to be arrogant and self-referential, and there is a lot of healthy and sometimes unhealthy tension on the job. We yell at each other, and we butt heads, and we live to work another day.

Threats about cutting off access are fairly routine.

Just not if you're Bob Woodward and used to deference.

I suppose there was a time in Woodward's career when he would not have taken offense to being bluntly told that he would regret having written something. That time has passed.

It is rather odd that he would interpret the threat as something sinister.

OMG!

[Tupac Shakur]

Woodward said he stands by the idea that Sperling’s language was over the line but stops short of suggesting outright intimidation. “I never characterized it as a ‘threat,’ ” he said. “I think that was Politico’s word. I said I think [Sperling’s] language is unfortunate, and I don’t think it’s the way to operate. . . . [Sperling’s] language speaks for itself. I don’t think that’s the way to operate.” ...

In an interview with CNN on Wednesday night, Woodward never used the word “threat” or said that he felt threatened. But he said Thursday: The White House has “the power. When someone says ‘you’ll regret something,’ they can use their power any way they want. It’s a tone question. . . . I’ve been dealing with White House people going back to the Nixon years. They called us every name in the book. [This] just strikes me as not a way to deal with this. It makes me uncomfortable.”

Woodward vs. White House: Washington at its weirdest

[Tupac Shakur]

This is probably the best analysis I've seen...

Obama Doesn't Hate Woodward, He Hates Washington