Lost in all of the manufactured media frenzy over whether a top White House official threatened veteran reporter Bob Woodward for his reporting on sequestration is this fundamental fact:
The White House lied. Again.
Mr. Woodward, The Washington Post reporter/editor of Watergate fame, had the audacity to write that sequestration was President Obama's idea and that the administration had “moved the goal posts” in budget negotiations. That is, the White House insisted on higher taxes to offset budget cuts, which wasn't part of the original deal.
The truth bites. And Woodward's reporting bit Mr. Obama right in the behind and right in the middle of the president's anti-sequestration propaganda tour. The other truth exposed anew is that when called on the carpet, the Obama administration's default position is to lie.
Now, back to Woodward.
As “threats” go, the email words of top presidential economic adviser Gene Sperling weren't very threatening, especially when the email exchange is considered in its full context. That said, this administration, quite thin-skinned, does have a thuggish habit of attempting to intimidate reporters and news organizations with whose reporting it takes umbrage.
In this case, however, the Obama camp went an ugly step further when former senior adviser David Plouffe tweeted disparaging remarks about Woodward.
But again, the bottom line is that this president and this administration will say anything at any time to anyone to pursue any end. And do give Bob Woodward, a liberal, credit for speaking truth to blatant liberal lies.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.