The Obama-Media vs. Bob Woodward

As the result of his efforts to recount the genesis, and likely effects, of sequestration, the across-the-board spending cuts slated to begin Friday, Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward is getting a taste of what happens to those who challenge the Obama-Democrat-media machine. Woodward’s allegations of inappropriate pressure from the White House were not only met with attacks from high-level administration lackeys, but Obama allies in the press immediately joined the feeding frenzy before any objective evidence was available — a chilling warning to anyone who would dare defy the power structure in Washington. And while debates about the intensity of the White House’s intimidation tactics are handy for undermining the credibility of the veteran reporter, looming in the background is the real source of the Left’s mob attack: Woodward’s vocal objections to the Obama administration’s narrative on the sequester.

Woodward began roiling the waters with a Feb. 22 piece for the Post, reiterating what he wrote in his book, “The Price of Politics.” He explained that the White House, not the Republican Party, was responsible for proposing the sequester. “Obama personally approved of the plan …according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved,” Woodward explained. This directly contradicts Obama’s assertion during the third presidential debate. “The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed,” Obama said at the time. “It is something that Congress has proposed.”

Woodward undoubtedly antagonized the White House even more when he said the president was “moving the goalposts,” in reference to the idea that Obama insisted any new deal replacing the sequester would have to include additional revenue, not just spending cuts. “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,” wrote Woodward. “But that was not the deal he made.”

Yet Woodward still wasn’t through. On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” show broadcast February 27, Woodward criticized Obama again, for overstating the consequences of sequestration. “Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying ‘Oh, by the way, I can’t do this because of some budget document?’” Woodward asked. “Or George W. Bush saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to invade Iraq because I can’t get the aircraft carriers I need’ or even Bill Clinton saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to attack Saddam Hussein’s intelligence headquarters,’ as he did when Clinton was president because of some budget document? Under the Constitution, the president is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the president going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement, I can’t do what I need to do to protect the country. That’s a kind of madness that I haven’t seen in a long time.”

On Wednesday night, he revealed that he had received pushback from the White House. During an interview with Politico, Woodward insisted that a top White House official, later identified as National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling, “yelled at me for about a half-hour,” and followed up that tirade with an email. “I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today,” Sperling wrote. “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.”

Woodward was seemingly annoyed by exchange. “‘You’ll regret.’ Come on,” he said. “I think if Obama himself saw the way they’re dealing with some of this, he would say, ‘Whoa, we don’t tell any reporter ‘you’re going to regret challenging us.’”

Woodward continued. “They have to be willing to live in the world where they’re challenged,” he insisted. “I’ve tangled with lots of these people. But suppose there’s a young reporter who’s only had a couple of years, or 10 years’ experience and the White House is sending him an email saying, ‘You’re going to regret this.’ You know, tremble, tremble. I don’t think it’s the way to operate.”

After that, the liberal media marshaled themselves against the reporter they have long considered an icon for bringing down the Left’s number one bête noire, Richard Nixon.

“Woodward Does Duty With the Phony Outrage Machine,” says the Huffington Post’s Eric Boehlert, who insisted that “by signing up for duty with the Phony Outrage Machine and by parading around on Fox News wringing his hands over a fictitious threat, Woodward does serious damage to his reputation.”

“Bob Woodward demands law-ignoring, mind-controlling presidential leadership” claims Salon’s Alex Pareene, who characterizes the reporter as one whose “modern reporting style does not put too much of a strain on his Ferragamo loafers: He simply talks to powerful people in his kitchen and then ‘re-creates’ events based on what they tell him.” Pareene longs for a Washington, D.C. “where no one talks to Woodward,” concluding that “Bob Woodward has lost it, let’s all stop indulging him.”

On Yesterday’s “Morning Joe” show, Mika Brzezinski mocked Woodward’s revelations about Sperling, wondering if he were “really afraid of a little aide who said that to him,” while panelists Mark Halperin and Andrea Mitchell, eager to promote the “everybody does it” meme to deflect criticism away from the current administration, insisted that they had been threatened by staff members of the Bush and Reagan White Houses, respectively.

Yet it was on Twitter where the left was in full attack mode. David Plouffe, former Obama campaign manager and current member of Organizing for America, claimed that “Watching Woodward last 2 days is like imagining my idol Mike Schmidt facing live pitching again. Perfection gained once is rarely repeated.” Former L.A. Times reporter Steve Weinstein said Woodward “is senile.” Politico White House reporter Glenn Thrush wondered if Woodward has “humped up his book sales from GOPers.”

Numerous other tweets ridiculing Woodward can be seen here and here. A common theme was that Woodward’s claims of being “threatened” were overblown. Yet Woodward never claimed he was threatened. It was the media who characterized his exchange with Sperling as such. Woodward told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that he felt “very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters, you’re going to regret doing something that you believe in.” In his Politico interview he said, “Color me a little baffled. I don’t understand this White House. Do you?”

On the other hand, what Bill Clinton’s former attorney Lanny Davis revealed yesterday sounded very much like a threat. In an interview with WMAL radio, Davis said that during his stint writing columns for the Washington Times, his editor, John Solomon, “received a phone call from a senior Obama White House official who didn’t like some of my columns, even though I’m a supporter of Obama. I couldn’t imagine why this call was made.”  Davis claims the aide told Solomon, “that if he continued to run my columns, he would lose, or his reporters would lose their White House credentials.”

Davis stood up for Woodward as well. “Firstly, you don’t threaten anyone. Secondly, you don’t threaten Bob Woodward,” he said. “He’s one of the best reporters ever. He’s factual. You can disagree with facts that he reports, but he’s factual. Don’t mess with him about his facts. You can mess with him about the interpretation of his facts, but this is not a reporter you tangle with.”

Yet that is exactly why Woodward has been targeted by a press corps that long ago abandoned truth-telling for two things they consider far more important: advocacy and access. Vast swaths of the media have become nothing more than an Amen Choir for the progressive agenda championed by Democrats and the Obama administration because they themselves are ideologically aligned with it.

As for access, the White House has made it clear that the greater the advocacy, the better the access. Nothing speaks to this better, albeit in the negative sense, than continuing efforts by this administration to delegitimize Fox News, an ongoing saga best illuminated by self-professed liberal columnist Kirsten Powers. Yet Powers clings to the anachronistic idea that “liberalism is founded on the idea of cherishing dissent and an inviolable right to freedom of expression.” Founded perhaps, but abandoned long ago. Powers would do well to recall the Journolist scandal, a coordinated effort to stifle dissent perpetrated by 400 media and academic leftists. That “dissent” was an effort to expose the truth about the president’s relationship with racial arsonist Rev. Jeremiah Wright, which had the potential to endanger Obama’s 2008 election chances.

Woodward is the left’s latest whipping boy because he is endangering the carefully crafted narrative of sequestration horror — and Republican responsibility for it — being disseminated by the left. Woodward is being singled out precisely because all media leftists are expected to fall in line behind that narrative. Plenty of conservatives have hammered the president’s take-no-prisoner approach to sequestration. None of them have been taken to task by a White House aide, or thrust into the national spotlight for the purpose of ridicule.

In short, one of the “faithful” has wandered off the Obama-Democrat-media reservation. In the long run, it is likely that no one will be more surprised than Bob Woodward when he discovers that there will be no wandering back onto it.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Chezwick

    Let's get one thing straight….both Andrew Sullivan and Charles Johnson have – after the WH email in question was published – branded Woodward a "liar" for calling it a "THREAT."

    Just one little fact here: Woodward NEVER called it a threat. He recounted the use of the phrase "you'll regret it", which was accurate…..and he said it made him feel uncomfortable…a feeling that is his prerogative as a human being.

    Andrew Sullivan and Charles Johnson themselves are LIARS for claiming Woodward called the email a "threat".

    • Roger

      This was never about who tells the truth.

      This is about those willing to stand up for the obvious.
      And Woodward just didn't bow low enough for the dictator.

      • HiPlainsDrifter

        But with all this as evidence of the Obama dicktatorship, will he support democrats in future elections, like Hillbilly? Of course he will…

        • Roger

          … of course he will. And Michelle will stop the lobster feeds and will stick to the same healthy diet she forces on school children. We know how concerned she is with obesity.

          • HiPlainsDrifter

            Right..the caring corrupt libural mindset run deep. Seeing the light in the MSM, means shunning, loneliness, and derision….just how conservatives feel most everyday..

          • Chezwick

            ROGER: "This was never about who tells the truth."

            RESPONSE: On the contrary, the search for the objective truth and postulating it to the American public is at the centerpiece of our entire ideological struggle with the Left. And this little sideshow is a microcosm of the Alinsky strategy for demonizing one's opponent. If Woodward is made out to be a liar as the Left is attempting, there is no need for the public to examine more closely his criticism of the Prez. Sullivan and Johnson are attempting to do just that…and are deliberately misrepresenting him in the process.

          • Roger

            The struggle for the country is about the truth.

            But the issue I was addressing was the struggle between this liberal reporter and the white house. And yes, I agree with your response. Woodward was brave in speaking up, too bad Justice John Roberts didn't have that much courage before betraying the country with his Obamacare ruling.

          • Chezwick

            Yep….Roberts' vote was a real shock, particularly since Kennedy sided with the Conservatives and therefore, the whole thing could have been shot down. I have a theory that Roberts voted the way he did solely for political reasons…that he didn't want any public backlash to the court's rejection of Obamacare to help the Prez win the election. If that was indeed his thinking, it was a complete and utter failure…and the moral lesson would be, 'stick to your convictions, repercussions be damned'.

          • Roger

            He was a disgrace to the entire judiciary. For what ever reason he screwed the pooch, he will always remain an example of power that could have stopped evil and didn't. In my book, he's right up there with Neville Chamberlain.

          • JacksonPearson

            When a person agrees with anything evil, they become a part of it.

          • Roger

            When the death panels make old people, the defenseless and the preventable deaths happen simply for the very things our founding fathers fought to prevent, that blood is on John Robert's hands.

            He doesn't deserve the things our country fought to protect since he betrayed it so badly.

          • JacksonPearson

            Roberts lost tons of credibility in his decision by legislating from the bench. It was to big of a case to lose that way.

            I understand newbies Sotomayor, and butch Kagan are warring with originalist Justice Scalia. No thnaks to Obama, It's going to get worse there, before it gets better.

          • JacksonPearson

            Justice John Roberts fell flat on his face on ObamaCare. Because the long term economic impact will be much, much worse than the Constitutional chipping away of Kelo vs City of New Haven on immanent domain. Both were poor decisions.

          • vic

            Roberts said that elections have consequences. Well, elections can also be stolen. Maybe he should of worried more about the constitution.

          • Roger

            The reason they have lifetime appointments is so they won't be mired in the elections and politics and can stay above it.

            Roberts? He flunked. The only thing worse than having him in office is his resigning and letting Obama appoint his replacement.

        • atthebeach

          Agree; albeit have to appreciate Woodward's smaller forays into Obama, Inc.'s. 'truth of the matter'. Too bad; he has not seen Obama, yet; in his worst light. Had he; certainly 'early on'; he may have scored a 'second coup'. Alas. . .Woodward saw no reason to 'go there'. Meantime; no question; that these people 'eat their own'; Woodward should not be surprised; but suspect he is.

          (Which goes to the Hillary scenario. She needs to watch her health – and her back; very carefully; these next few years.)

    • JacksonPearson

      Clearly, Andrew Sullivan and Charles Johnson are left wing hacks. Their credibility only goes so far, than falls over the Leftyville cliff.

    • Guest

      Johnson's a fat fool who deletes anyone on his blog who posts anything against his personal beliefs.

      • Chezwick

        Charles Johnson has conceded that Woodward never actually used the word "threat"…but that it doesn't matter because according to Johnson, the "threat" was "implied"….and yet, the headline of his Woodward thread continues to read: Bob Woodward's Disgraceful Lies About White House "Threats"….

        Johnson is a vicious, ethically-challenged, petulant adolescent.

        • Roger

          And there was a clearly implied threat in that email.
          So if you want to change the level of proof then Woodward was still telling the truth.

    • semus

      You're right in a way because it was a tempest in a tea cup. After all Woodward was, is and always will be a Obama supporter and more importantly a defender. But it still was a threat, but nothing compared to the serious threats made by this Adminstration.

      • semus

        "but nothing compared to the serious threats made by this Administration" serious and less publicized.

      • Roger

        So this 'most transparent administration' is clearly for the rights of the press to say exactly what they're told to say.

  • AdinaK

    Well meaning folks can debate, whether or not a full throttle threat was issued, or any implication thereof. That being said, since past is prologue, and history does repeat, the Obama-media machine – joined-at-the-hip – does NOT tolerate any dissent from the proffered narrative.

    Their machine is serious, and they often more than cover each others backs and tracks –

    There is no sense denying the above.Let us not get lost in the minutia.

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel

    • Glennd1

      Whew, thank goodness you are here…So proud of your little blog of vitriol, combining a low mentality and untrained mind with agit prop and conservative sound bites, topped off with Zionist religious supremacism. Stand back, wretch, continue.

      What's really interesting about the dustup with Woodward is that it had to be a perfect storm in order for Obama's deception to be revealed and dealt with. I happen to have read all of Woodward's books on Obama and Bush (I doubt Adina has read even one), and they are not exciting reads. They are detailed and fact laden with impeccable sourcing and fact checking. Woodward was granted unprecedented access to the Bush administration as an act of openness that the left has never acknowledged. Woodward's books on Bush were fair and tough, but were in no way the 'Bush derangement syndrome' porn that many on the left wanted, so even then the hardcore the 'juicebox journalist' crowd began turning on him back then.

      Woodward's first book on Obama, Obama's War, was not glowing but it received very little attention in the conservative world because Woodward's last book on the Bush admin – State of Denial, was indeed highly critical. However, it was careful and accurate. But this lead conservatives who had reacted kindly to Woodward's earlier work on the administration to demonize him and not focus in his first book on Obama. What is revealed their plainly is that Obama dithers, is really driven solely by the his inner circles highly parochial political views and never, ever had a serious intention of 'winning' anything in Afghanistan. The "surge" he agreed to was smaller than any recommendation made by the military and it was obvious that the optics were all that was important.

      However, Obama never made public statements about the policy and politics of Afghanistan that were in direct contravention to the published, factual record. I mean, just look at it. The only way Woodward can survive this attack is because he published all these facts over a year ago, and they were meticulously sourced and verified. That's what I mean about the "perfect storn". The only way this ever gets any head of steam is because it's Woodward and all that entails, because it's already been published and widely read and because Obama lied about it overtly in a major, highly politicized way.

      And even then, the left will not get on board. It really does demonstrate how utterly intellectually dishonest so much of the political newsmedia has become. Not even Bob Woodward, with Obama caught red-handed in a baldfaced, absurd lie, will be believed by them. They just reject everything that doesn't support their "narrative" and move on. No matter what. And they know they won't be punished by their bosses or fans. What they are actually doing now is producing 'political porn' for their rabid Progressive mad fans. That's it. And it's all in service of fluffing for Obama.

      That's what real commentary looks like, Adina. Your linkdropping soundbites identify you as a 'political porn producer' for the Zionist right wing of America, so you are no better off than the leftists you savage in your thuggish way. Fyi, I'm no leftist, but I see the world clearly. I, like Thomas Jefferson, fear the partisanship (he called it factionalism) you represent, and it disgusts me as it did him.

      • JacksonPearson

        Are you still stalking Adina…SHAME!

        • Glennd1

          Why "SHAME"? I'm not a fan, is that a crime of some sort here? I think she's vulgar and dopey. And she uses this site to market her blog, her commentary is ginned up and designed to drive traffic to her blog, not add to the conversation. So, I slam her.

          • JacksonPearson

            Yep. If that's all you got…than SHAME.

        • Glennd1

          Also notice she never responds. She's got FrontPage on an RSS feed with an alert. so whenever a new article comes up she races in to comment early to assure maximum exposure to generate traffic for her blog. She assesses what piece of "content" on her blog can plausibly be positioned as relevant to the story at hand and then drops that link along with a comment that tries to tie it all together. It's all contrived, she has no interest in dialog here. She's an entrepreneurial blog/acitivist type, trying to build her brand. I know, because I'm a professional at such things, and blog extensively.

          It jumps off the page at one if one is informed about 'organic blog traffic building'. Her blog it garbage too, the quality of the writing is perhaps 7th grade reading level, and it's all just regurgitated zionist-conservative agit prop.She's trying to build a brand – and she probably will. I bet she'll start showing up on FP with an article one of these days – if she hasn't done so already, or she'll be interviewed on some dopey conservative talk radio show.

          Just sayin'…

          • JacksonPearson

            Adina's talented, and I wish her success.
            And I wish success and riches to every author on this site that posts threads. Because with all of their knowledge and research, they're worth it.

      • Drakken

        You see the world clearly? You have go to be bloody well kidding me? You are under the mistaken impression that if the west completely pulls out of the muslim world and throws Israel to the jihadist that everyone can sing kumbaya and the world will be one happy place. You don't know jacks**t about how the world really works, other than wishful thinking and not knowing our enemies. Your a dumbazz period.

        • Glennd1

          Drakken – Take your meds or beat your dog or something. Just look at the quality of my commentary versus yours, here, or on any thread. You come across like an enraged and vicious bully, while I just make point after point after point, citing sources and explaining my reasoning. It's you who doesn't understand much. it's you who's always throwing down verbally as though you are some kind of tough guy, lol. Doing verbal battle with the likes of you is light work for me, like picking a seed from between my teeth. Some advice for you? Stop bringing a knife to a gunfight, you only demean yourself with every word you write.

          • reader

            I think that a schizo who feels the urge to troll the board regulars and plus own posts to feel good about self is the one who needs to take meds. That would be you, if your powerful intellect failed to identify oneself.

          • Drakken

            Quality? Really? I'll say this about you, your sure long on quantity but really short on quality and short on facts, because if you knew one bloody thing about the muslim world you wouldn't be talking out of your azz because your mouth knows better. Verbal battle? How quaint, I deal with the physical world because real life is lot more brutal than your precious sensibilities can handle. Some advice for you, go see what the real world is, other than visit it in your virtual one.

  • john butala

    Woodward must be punished for observing the obvious: Obama is the biggest liar to ever inhabit the Oval Office. But now he must be punished for doing so. In every lib media rathole he must be vilified for dishonoring Fearless Leader.

  • pierce

    And just why must Woodward be punished? The President is either a short term liar, or the President is liar, but which ever it is, this President has to be held accountable. The best thing Obama does is TALK, but the television media do not throw away his comments, so those comments come back to haunt him. Mr President, you have been proven a LIAR, do not blame Bob Woodward, be man enough to take responsibility for your actions. You are not being misquoted.

    • gerry

      The President is a pathological liar,as demonstrated by David Maraniss.

  • Mary Sue

    Obama being a narcissist of the highest order (perhaps only topped by Saint Dr. David Suzuki of Canada's CBC television and environmental hero extraordinaire, who is as haughty, arrogant, elitist, and downright childish as Obama ever could be, cranked up to maximum), has no problem lying like a sidewalk. That's what narcissists do.

  • logdon

    Next a Reichstag Fire (Sandy Hook) followed by an Enabling Act (disarming America) and this man will have followed the playbook perfectly.

    Obama swore fealty to the Constitution and he's now ripping it apart, in other words he is now positioning himself above the eternal declaration of the Founding Fathers.

    In 1933 following the Enabling Act Hitler changed the military oath from that towards the German Constitution to himself personally. Is Obama's bonfire so far different?

    I'd say only by degree and we all know how degrees can shift and be tilted by sleight of speech, manipulation of meaning and the panoply of useful media idiots who would tell us that all is well.

    • tagalog

      The difference is that the Hitler Loyalty Oath came from the Hitler administration and was imposed on his subordinates. The Obama Loyalty Oath is entirely voluntary and comes up to the Fuehrer from the grass roots.

      • logdon

        'The Obama Loyalty Oath is entirely voluntary and comes up to the Fuehrer from the grass roots'.

        For now.

  • HiPlainsDrifter

    Is Woodward "off the Reservation" or "off the Plantation"? Either way, the corrupt posse is after him, rhetorically speaking, to get his mind right..

    • JacksonPearson

      I don't think Bob Woodward will fold. Proof is on Woodward's side, so Obama will fail to tarnish him. Plus in this case, the MSM would be fools to stick with Obama, as they usually have.

      • HiPlainsDrifter

        He had no problem holding the corrupt Nixon's feet to the fire, as was his Constitutional responsibility. But has for the most part, failed, at holding any corrupt democrat feet to the same fire.
        Simply informing on the political foibles and corruption, without " proper" outrage, is shirking that Constitutional responsibility..

        • JacksonPearson

          Yep, Woodward and Bernstein burned Nixon at the stake, and never looked back, or blinked.

          Woodward's present debacle is a minor issue compared to what the press should be doing to a corrupt Baracky. No doubt this will either disappear, or be on page 20 next week.

    • Asher

      They have went after Lanny Davis too!

      • JacksonPearson

        And Rush Limbaugh.

        • HiPlainsDrifter

          It's a big plantation in DC, but if you wander too far off, the boss man, gonna go all Kunta Kinte on yo' ass..( I think they cut off his foot with an axe, ouch )

          • JacksonPearson

            Obama's insane, and so are his ilk. They'll go after anybody and everybody for trivial sayings. It just goes to show how small of mind he has, for the job of the presidency. Some organizations need to be micro managed, however, not a country of 330mil.

          • HiPlainsDrifter

            Sorry JP..hit the down arrow by accident, big thumb..!

          • JacksonPearson

            No prob… :o)

        • Mary Sue

          They've been doing that since 1988.

  • Poly Sci

    The recalcitrant White House is playing its usual game of"blame the other guy" for my transgressions!
    Situation ethics are the order of the day, making lying an important part of the scenario from start to finish. Whatever fits their current goal forms the letter of the day!
    Thankfully, the White House doesn't need a Hollywood script writer 'cause they do their own manuscript in house!
    What a joke!

  • Winston

    But, last night on FoxNews, Woodward started back pedalling on the "threat" not calling it such. Doen't anyone in Washington and the NY news bureaus have any cajones anymore, or have they all been threatened by Chicago thugs?

  • tagalog

    Surely I'm not the only one here who remembers how Bob Woodward's political affiliation was universally proclaimed as Republican, in what seemed to be a rather desperate effort to persuade the public that the Washington Post's investigative journalism of Watergate and the Nixon administration was fair-minded.

    Now Woodward is paying his dues for that. It took 40 years. Never let it be said that the lefties among us have short memories.

  • clarespark

    I'm sure that Woodward views himself as a moderate man, however he may vote. Moderate and "balanced." Moderation in all things may be a good thing in personal health, but "moderation", like "balance," is a favorite term in psychological warfare. I discussed that here:…. "Moderate men falling down."

    • John Stone

      I know a little about Melville’s Ahab and more about Hitler and the Nazi movement.

      The view here is that art serves best as a means of conveying emotion, and on that level Hitler was definitely an artistic personality. He was primarily a man with intense passions who had a need to express those feelings. We might note in passing that from its symbolism to its uniforms to its ceremonies, Nazism consistently looked good. Hitler personally designed the symbols and uniforms, and no doubt had influence on the theatrical productions. After all these years Nazism has yet to look old fashioned.

      Plus Adolph had a good sense of the dramatic. Too bad he did not become a move producer, not only would he have made good movies, but the body count would have been a lot lower.

      Early on Nazi propaganda was anti-Semitic because there was some traditional anti-Semitism in Germany, because it appealed to the more conservative elements that the Nazi’s wanted to attract, and because the Jewish minority served as a scapegoat for the war loss. Perhaps because of Hitler, to this initial list was added the idea that the Jews had brought about the more modern, capitalist, industrial world; a world that challenged a vision of an idealistic past of small villages peopled with noble Germans. As the government in Berlin was also progressive, this vision linked the antisemitism with the then current German government.

      Hitler went from this vision to seeing history as the recording of a titanic struggle between the best and most noble people, the Germans; against a capable and diabolical people, the Jews. As the Jews were outnumbered, they tricked other people into being on their side and used them as agents to destroy the German race. Hitler’s vision of the Jews was so extreme that odds favor he was a true clinical psychotic.

      What occurs to me is that if you take Hitler on his own terms, his life was a Greek tragedy. By his own lights, he was the great hero struggling against stupendous odds and ultimately losing. And as it was with Hitler, so it was with Melville’s Ahab. Ahab a strong, intense man against an enormous foe, and ultimately he lost to his enemy. Of course Ahab’s enemy was God, and we might suppose that Ahab like the Fallen Angel, was consigned to hell. As for Hitler it would be harder to say, perhaps you have to believe in hell to go there.

      • clarespark

        On Ahab, some critics do believe that he had a quarrel with God, but there are competing interpretations that read the Whale as evil, or as Leviathan. See….

  • BLJ

    I wish I could get all of those clowns from MSMBC to sit at a big round table. Then I could grab a baseball bat and pretend I am Al Capone. I would just hit everyone instead of just one.

    The American people need to step up and overthrow the Muslim usurper who resides in the WH. This is the only solution that I can see to eradicate this huge mistake.

  • Danny Caplan

    Let's try to use our imagination here: Can you imagine how these same Leftist reporters who are dismissing this story would have reacted had it been a Bush aide that threatened a reporter? They would have called for an investigation, impeachment hearings, and we would hear non-stop how the administration is totalitarian. There is no self-awareness on the Left

    • Michael Durham

      I am an immigrant to USA from Ukraine in 1985, and I am telling you about these "domestic reporters", and your beautiful "progressive" and "Democrat" politicians…they're mostly KGB-conditioned and demoralized spawn from Hell, right here in your USA midst, thank you to Columbia U and Hollywood…and this goes back at least 3 generations. They infest your soil, and there is no getting rid of them. You are stuck with them. With the Obama re-election, you have more than "perfect storm", it is political hurricane of the past 2 centuries. America does not know what is in store. May Heaven help her.

  • Asher

    Anytime the WH tells you, you may regret your comments, there is more behind the statement. Mike Huckabee said it best: "Bob Woodsward is an equal opportunity torpedo thrower at both parties," he has written articles about both parties and Presidents. This just shows how the left squeals when someone wants to tell the truth!

  • Questions

    This is another chapter in suppression of freedom of the press, though conducted so as not to be too obvious.

  • κατεργάζομαι

    Re: "The Obama-Media vs. Bob Woodward"

    They say when you play Bob Woodward's books backward you can hear satanic messages …

    ….. but that's nothing.

    …When you play them forward you listen to White House Press Corps & Administration lackeys!.

    • JacksonPearson

      The MSM is the MSM, they're ALL members of Obama's orchestra!

      • κατεργάζομαι

        Obama's orchestra. ha!
        They axed Obama what' a sonata?
        ~Obama said: it's what you get from a bad cold or hay fever.

        • JacksonPearson

          He plays them, and they sound like a broken fiddle.

          • κατεργάζομαι

            They axed Obama if he knew three-four time….

            – and Barack Obama waltzed around the question saying,

            …….."No. No laws have caught me yet"

          • JacksonPearson

            He's gotten away with plenty. However, sooner or later his chickens will come home to roost. I'd hope it happens sooner, rather than later.

          • κατεργάζομαι

            Barack & Michelle luv fried chickens. (especially Mitch McConnel & John Boehner!)

            Q: Why is Michelle removing the trans-fat
            from her menu?

            A: Because SHE want that Variety bucket
            to pad HER ass without clogging HER arteries!

          • JacksonPearson

            Michelle (or is Michael), is big enough to play in the NFL.

          • κατεργάζομαι

            Q: What do accordion players use as a contraceptive?
            A: Their personalities.

        • κατεργάζομαι

          Q: How does Obama protect a valuable instrument?
          A: Obama hides it in an accordion case.

        • κατεργάζομαι

          Question: – What do you say to an OBAMA raper a three-piece suit?

          A: "Will the defendant please rise?"

  • Western Spirit

    That's the problem— freedom. People can't be relied upon to stay in line and repeat the Party line, because they are untethered by lines. It's hard to write straight with out guiding lines and it's hard to govern correctly without them, too.

    And the pesky Constitution is making it hard to create "brown shirts" to bring "order" because it protects the citizens right to protect themselves. And what's a "brown shirt" to do if faced with citizens who are able to protect themselves ?

    So it is obvious the problem with this country is freedom that makes marching in line in an orderly fashion difficult but not impossible to achieve. It'll just take a little more time. After all political correctness has shown the way to stifle free people and moral equivalency with its accompanying multi-Culturism has confused them.

    So how hard can it be to rid ourselves of the rest of the hindrance of freedom? Get rid of a few Supreme Court justices, create a one party system and that's it —we're free of freedom. We're almost there all we need is just a little bit more of the right ingredients to succeed.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    I wonder if Woodward has been notified yet by the IRS that he is going to be audited and the
    FBI want to interview him and that if he keeps up any more of his truth telling he will have to
    spend time in stir with Roseanne Bar, tied to a table and voice boarded………..?

  • MamieVanDoren

    The administration has decided this associate is a canary who should be broken and muscled with the kiss of death, on the record from the old man – he's a problem, a rat, a pigeon, not a stand-up guy. The sottocapo's gonna do some spring cleaning, time for a burn. Chased by the gaff Capo di tutti Capi himself. He was handed the envelope but dropped the dime. The outfit demands the code of silence, but he's a snitch and a stoolie – time to take a ride.

  • mikeh420

    Everyone else sees that the President has no clothes, but Bob is the only one with the guts to say so. Hopefully he doesn't Sleep With The Fishes.

  • Attila The Hun

    It is true the classical definition of liberalism is
    '“ founded on the idea of cherishing dissent and an inviolable right to freedom of expression.”
    The reality is that classical liberalism have been hijacked by American Marxists who are
    using it to hide their tyrannical ambitions. Which is one final election and no more.
    The sad part of it is that The American People are unable to see the obvious.

    • zalukas

      Very apt quote. Allow me to throw in my 2 cents. Back in from 30’s to 70’s KGB foreign influence directorate planted and cultivated ideas of Utopia in American institutions of learning. Dumbed down will embrace the lie more willingly that educated populace.

      KGB is no more, as an organization, but the weeds planted long ago still grow and threaten to strangle everything good and useful that made this country once great and proud.

    • R Eskola

      I don't think they hijacked classical liberalism – they just stole it's good name.