Reporter Bob Woodward, best-known as the Woodward part of the Woodward-Bernstein duo who broke the Watergate story that ultimately brought down Richard Nixon and his administration, likes to make news. And likes to be the story, when good journalists generally learn to not be.
Woodward has been attacking President Obama over sequestration for a week. Here’s the gist:
Woodward tells Politico a top level senior aide to the President yelled at him for a half hour and “threatened” him after Woodward’s been slamming the President. Woodward says the White House told him he would “regret” it. Woodward said this made him “uncomfortable.”
Whoa. Sounds pretty rough, right?
“The official in question is Gene Sperling, economic adviser to the president,” Politico reveals, and prints the emails:
From Gene Sperling to Bob Woodward on Feb. 22, 2013
I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. My bad. I do understand your problems with a couple of our statements in the fall — but feel on the other hand that you focus on a few specific trees that gives a very wrong perception of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here.
But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim. The idea that the sequester was to force both sides to go back to try at a big or grand barain with a mix of entitlements and revenues (even if there were serious disagreements on composition) was part of the DNA of the thing from the start. It was an accepted part of the understanding — from the start. Really. It was assumed by the Rs on the Supercommittee that came right after: it was assumed in the November-December 2012 negotiations. There may have been big disagreements over rates and ratios — but that it was supposed to be replaced by entitlements and revenues of some form is not controversial. (Indeed, the discretionary savings amount from the Boehner-Obama negotiations were locked in in BCA: the sequester was just designed to force all back to table on entitlements and revenues.)
I agree there are more than one side to our first disagreement, but again think this latter issue is diffferent. Not out to argue and argue on this latter point. Just my sincere advice. Your call obviously.
My apologies again for raising my voice on the call with you. Feel bad about that and truly apologize.
From Woodward to Sperling on Feb. 23, 2013
Gene: You do not ever have to apologize to me. You get wound up because you are making your points and you believe them. This is all part of a serious discussion. I for one welcome a little heat; there should more given the importance. I also welcome your personal advice. I am listening. I know you lived all this. My partial advantage is that I talked extensively with all involved. I am traveling and will try to reach you after 3 pm today. Best, Bob
So, now are you wondering what other facts Bob Woodward has twisted?
Video via TPM
We invite you to sign up for our new mailing list, and subscribe to The New Civil Rights Movement via email or RSS.