Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Goal posts moved, threat or not (Update — Lanny Davis discloses threats against him)

    Goal posts moved, threat or not (Update — Lanny Davis discloses threats against him)

    There’s major push back from the White House and supportive media this morning over whether Bob Woodward was “threatened,” with the emails indicating that the “you will regret” language came in a broader email. The defense of the White House is pretty typical, try to isolate not only the dissenter but also the language.

    Woodward took the “you will regret” language as crossing the line after a heated conversation with White House official Gene Sperling, and after a week of the administration orchestrating attacks on Woodward. The “you will regret” language can’t be viewed in isolation — indeed Woodward in his explanations as to how he took the language didn’t view it in isolation, but as part of the overall campaign to isolate him.

    Woodward was pretty clear about the context of the “you will regret” language prior to the emails being released, and the emails do little to change the context described by Woodward:

    You can dispute whether this was a threat, but the release of the emails, which is being greeted by Obama defenders with great fanfare, really doesn’t change the story.

    Another thing that has not changed is that Woodward was right about the subject of the yelling and “you will regret” verbiage, that the White House has moved the goal posts. Woodward was being attacked in the mainstream media and left-blogosphere long before the “you will regret” language was used.

    And it all was in the context of politically defending the White House against any facts that would tend to negate the hyperbole and fear-mongering over the sequester. The goal posts were moved by the White House, and attacking the messenger Woodward has been part of the strategy from the get-go.

    Video via Free Beacon:

    UPDATE — It’s not just Bob Woodward who receives the treatment, Lanny Davis: White House told Washington Times to stop running my column or else…:

    Listen to the entire audio, Davis discussed how he called the White House to complain about the threat, and was promised it would never happen again. You don’t make that promise unless it happened.

    The swiftness with which the so-called journalists moved to defend Obama is amazing.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    One angle to the current dispute definitely not covered …
    If the sequester is aborted, the credit rating on T-bills will go down.

      Neo in reply to Neo. | February 28, 2013 at 12:15 pm

      S. 388 would eliminate the automatic spending reductions scheduled to occur under current law for 2013 and would partially eliminate the reductions scheduled for 2014. The bill also would eliminate direct payments to certain agricultural producers, provide funding for agricultural disaster assistance, and exempt from sequestration all mandatory funding provided for the Department of Agriculture.

      In addition, S. 388 would ensure that taxpayers with annual income above $5 million face an average tax rate of at least 30 percent on their income, and it would extend an existing per-barrel tax on oil production to oil produced from tar sands.

      CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting the bill would increase budget deficits from changes in direct spending and revenues by $7.2 billion over the 2013-2023 period. Because enacting the legislation would affect direct spending and revenues, pay-as-you-go procedures apply.

      The Senate can’t even make it deficit neutral.

    punfundit | February 28, 2013 at 11:24 pm

    Welcome to Chicago.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend