Obama official threatens veteran journalist, gets away with it

By Catholic Online (NEWS CONSORTIUM)
2/28/2013
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

A comment that would get most people fired goes unpunished.

A veteran White House journalist says he was threatened by a senior official in the White House because of an op-ed he published over the weekend. Bob Woodward, penned the piece calling out Obama for changing the terms of the deal he made with Congress to avoid the sequester.

Bob Woodward, veteran journalist, was threatened by an Obama administration official for an op-ed he wrote.

Facebook Delicous MySpace

Twitter Stumble Digg

More Destinations

LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) - Bob Woodard says he was threatened after publishing an on-ed over the weekend in The Washington Post. That piece prompted a reply from a senior administration official, whom he is refusing to name. The threat says, "you will regret doing this."

Woodward told CNN in an interview, "They're not happy at all."

What Woodward did was criticize Obama's handling of the sequester, a package of automatic spending cuts set to begin on Friday. Obama, despite previous pledges to cut spending, has said he now wants a more "balanced" approach, which includes closing tax benefits he has identified as loopholes.

In other words, Obama wants to cut less and raise more taxes instead. Republicans have said they will stand firm this time, and the sequester is virtually certain to happen.

However, White House officials have bristled at Woodward's comments, which say the change in strategy by the Obama administration is unfair.

Woodward wrote in his piece, "When the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts. His call for a balanced approach is reasonable, and he makes a strong case that those in the top income brackets could and should pay more. But that was not the deal he made."

Simply put, Woodward is treading softly, but still explaining that Obama is reneging on a deal he previously made. If true, then it makes lies of his prior promises, and that is naturally embarrassing for the administration.

Indeed, Republicans have seized on Woodward's quote and used it repeatedly all week to emphasize that even veteran journalists like Woodward are crying foul over Obama's latest broken promises.

The White House has declined to interview on the situation, however another White House official, again unnamed, said that "no threat was intended."

She went further and said that the email suggested Woodward "would regret the observation he made regarding the sequester because that observation was inaccurate, nothing more."

Of course, the political whitewashing is likely an attempt to make apologetics for a rude, and underhanded remark against a journalist doing his job. It also hints at the culture in the White House, that such a comment could even be considered acceptable in any context. In most workplaces, that specific string of words could get one fired, or even arrested.

However, Obama has said nothing about the comment, and as long as the offender remains protected by anonymity, it's unlikely they will face any real consequence for threatening a member of the free[?] press.

� 2013, Distributed by NEWS CONSORTIUM.

- - -

Pope Benedict XVI's Prayer Intentions for January 2013
General Intention: The Faith of Christians. That in this Year of Faith Christians may deepen their knowledge of the mystery of Christ and witness joyfully to the gift of faith in him.
Missionary Intention: Middle Eastern Christians. That the Christian communities of the Middle East, often discriminated against, may receive from the Holy Spirit the strength of fidelity and perseverance.

Keywords: Obama, comment, Woodward, threat, journalist, sequester, op-ed

NEWSLETTERS »

Rate This Article

Was this helpful to you? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Would you be interested in more articles like this? Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 6 of 6 Comments

Josephine Boone
3 months ago
Aaron is correct.
Look at the actual email and see what you think.
Here's the relevant paragraph from from Sperling: (the White House)

" I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. 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 ... My apologies again for raising my voice on the call with you. Feel bad about that and truly apologize".

Did Woodward see this as a threat? Look at his response to Sperling

" 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."
Martha
3 months ago
The president contines to CENSOR the press, he has been from the beginning...if you don't agree, you are dismissed. Buh bye.

His "way" of doing things is STOMP on the ones that disagree, it's no secret. You can see his derision when ANYone questions what he has to say.

He is NOT a god, just a man with a title. (What title you wish to name is up to you.....)
Jerry N
3 months ago
Aaron: "This is a lie...Woodward has denied calling this a threat. "

Woodward may call it something else now that he's been duly warned by the WH that he better change his tune, but it is on this video for all to see and hear what Woodward first said about the incident: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LoLRc6i2EXk.

He says a senior somebody in the WH told him he would "regret doing this" and that this made him feel "very uncomfortable".

Here is the Oxford dictionaries' definition of the word threaten: "1. state one’s intention to take hostile action against someone in retribution for something done or not done". Clearly, Woodward thought the person was stating an intention to take hostile action against him in retribution for what he wrote about Obama. Apparently, he feels threatened enough that he now is softening his language about it. But he has not denied that the threat was made just as he stated it in the video.

Let's see now, someone tells you that you would "regret doing this", whilst clearly referring to something you did that they did not like. If that is not being threatened, then Oxford has the definition completely wrong. If Oxford has the definition wrong, then I guess only Obama supporters are allowed to decide on the correct definitions of words.
Aaron
3 months ago
This is a lie perpetrated by Politico. Woodward has denied calling this a threat.

Sperling said this: "I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. ... You're focusing on a few specific trees that give a very wrong impression of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here. ... I think you will regret staking out that claim."

The radical right is once again making things up to smear our President, and the mouth-breathing morons that live in this murky world of ignorance and racism are lapping it up.
vance
3 months ago
Woodward dared to be an honest journalist. All of the media is Obama's hand puppet. Anyone who dares to get independent is soon slapped down.
Joe
3 months ago
Sad, freedom of speech is almost, I hope and pray we can hang on to freedom of religion.

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment