White House official tells Journalist, he will "regret" his criticism

[Jamoking]

Apparently Bob Woodward, an American journalist, whom you might know from exposing the Watergate scandal, was sent an email from a 'very senior' white house official saying "You will regret doing this." I guess this comes after Woodward has criticized Obama on the upcoming budget cuts.

UPDATE 1-Bob Woodward says White House told him he would regret criticism | Reuters

Spoiler:

WASHINGTON, Feb 27 (Reuters) - Journalist Bob Woodward on Wednesday said a senior White House official told him he would "regret" taking issue in recent days with President Barack Obama's version of how across-the-board budget cuts came to be.

Woodward, who challenged the White House account in an article on Sunday, said a "very senior" White House official sent him an email in which, "It was said very clearly, 'You will regret doing this.'"

Woodward made the comment in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer. He declined to name the official.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday night.

Earlier in the day, Woodward criticized Barack Obama's handling of the cuts set to take effect this week, calling the president's decision to hold back on military deployments "madness."

His comments continued what has become a running dispute between Woodward, perhaps the country's best-known print journalist, and the Democratic White House about who is responsible for the across-the-board cuts scheduled to begin on Friday.

Last week, Woodward published an opinion piece in the Washington Post - where he is an associate editor - saying the administration was "wrong" to blame the cuts on Republicans.

That drew retorts from White House press secretary Jay Carney, who in posts on Twitter and later in comments to reporters blamed the budget stalemate on Republican opposition to including increased revenues in any deal to replace the cuts.

The $85 billion across-the-board budget cuts were mandated by Congress and the White House as part of the August 2011 deal to avoid a government default. The reductions are split between defense spending and domestic programs.

Woodward, who first gained fame in the 1970s from exposing the Watergate scandal during the administration of President Richard Nixon, wrote a detailed account in his 2012 book, "The Price of Politics," of the August 2011 deal that led to the cuts.

Woodward followed with two television appearances on Wednesday.

In one, on MSNBC, he attacked Obama for drawing national security into the budget debate.

"So we now have the president going out (saying) '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," Woodward told MSNBC on Wednesday.

On Tuesday, Obama warned of threats to Navy readiness in a visit to the Newport News Shipbuilding shipyard in Virginia, where maintenance to the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln has been delayed by the budget crisis.

Earlier this month, the Pentagon said it was delaying deployment of another carrier, the USS Harry Truman, to the Middle East because of funding.

Obama's decision to drag the military into the budget fight likely would not have happened in previous administrations, Republican or Democratic, Woodward added on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program.

In the second interview, on CNN, he said, "It makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters, you're going to regret doing something that you believe in." (Reporting by Susan Heavey; Editing by Fred Barbash, Eric Beech and Lisa Shumaker)

While I haven't followed what's going on with the recent budget cuts closely, I'm appalled that someone in Obama's administration would send an email such as this. Saying something along the lines of "You will regret this." sounds like a threat if I've ever heard one, especially when it's directed at a reporter.

I may not respect the current journalism here in the US, but they shouldn't be threatened. And I don't think I've ever heard of a "senior" official for the White House threaten a reporter like this. I'm even more surprised at the fact that the threat directed at Bob Woodward, such a well known reporter.

[Marirranya]

people who uncover top/classified information are killed most of the time!

just look at the movies hahaha

but seriously, that does sound like a threat and wow didnt the White House official think that the journalist would make it known that he was somewhat threatened? lolol

[Asheekay]

Has the said reporter provided proof of his claim with any excerpt from the email he received?

It would be extremely stupid for a government senior to send such threats and more so, from his very own official address. Even if he did decide to play a baseless fool, he should at least have registered for a new address and sent the threatening mail from there.

And if he was really so pissed, he should better have taken the fellow out silently and set an example for the rest of them. Now that the crap has hit the fan it is going to be extremely difficult to do any such thing.

Thoughtless moron!

[Cpt.Karnas]

It is all about socialism. Obama has no clue on governing this country. I hope that all of you are seeing what he is doing.

[Commissar MercZ]

Originally Posted by Cpt.Karnas

It is all about socialism. Obama has no clue on governing this country. I hope that all of you are seeing what he is doing.

lol what

Then again the whole "Obama is a socialist" spheel never seems to die, even after four years of showing he was no where near as such. Why does this even sell in the first place?

I think Woodward is overselling what happened. He doesn't name the official in question and we are relying on his account of what ever happened there from what he is saying. Maybe the statement meant that Woodward would regret publishing information that would come out to be false in the end? He's trying to make it look like the White House was threatening him over the story because he had some truth, and implicitly having some gangland association there.

For those of you who don't remember, Woodward got a bit of a black eye back in the Valery Plame-Scooter Libby-CIA leak mess because of his own journalistic conduct there over the way he treated his sources. Or should I at least specify that it was Republicans more specifically who got angry at it.

If you want to talk about government squishing critics in the United States, Bob Woodward isn't a good example. Those people like Aaron Swartz who got ferociously attacked and prosecuted for speaking out in favor of an open web or Bradley Manning whose actions in in leaking information was seen as a national security threat. Or how Al Jazeera got ferociously attacked and straw-manned over perceived support for terrorists and local cities blocking it from even being carried? Do we see pundits holding this up as an example of some of the Obama's administration's questionable actions? No, because they support these things.

Morphing this into a stupid police-state dialogue because of one line seems to be a bit of a stretch to me. White House staff should be more mindful of what they say to journalists, not only for sake of freedom of speech but because situations like this can become media sensation. At worst what I see happening if this is indeed an attack against Woodward is that the White House might refuse interviews with him in the future. This is not uncommon with the White House anyways- every administration has their own preferred journalists and networks they work through.

The irony here is that because of the Plame mess and his criticisms of the Bush White House (or for the really long running grudges, Watergate) Woodward was essentially a symbol of "liberal media" and gotcha journalists. But now the same outlets that have been railing on him suddenly hold him up as a hero exposing Obama's Chicago-style thug politics and intimidation of media. Yeah, this is definitely not partisan but a genuine concern for independent press.

[Nemmerle]

Like as not what they meant was that Woodward wouldn't be forwarded insider tips and so on anymore. That's how the game's played, and quite explicitly so. Journalists that toe the line get information. While those who don't, don't - which makes it very difficult to compete with those that do. It's one of the reasons that there's so little critical media concerning the police and the courts.

You don't have to kill a man to cripple his career. If you were going to kill him, you'd do it quietly. It'd look more like when the news of the world whistle-blower was found dead.

Who's going to take Woodward's calls now? Republicans? They know he's not going to play ball with them either - he hasn't in the past - and they've no guarantee he'll be any tamer for them than he was for Obama. They might have him on for an interview but they're probably not going to hire him; you don't seat your clown at the high table.

[Commissar MercZ]

Alright, the name of Woodward's white house aide is "Gene Sperling", an old Democratic Party member with experience in 90s politics. These are the emails:

Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed - Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei - POLITICO.com

From Gene Sperling to Bob Woodward on Feb. 22, 2013

Bob:

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.

Gene

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

I've bolded the line that Woodward is saying was intimidation from the White House over his Washington Post op-ed piece.

[Schofield]

The Obama administration is disgusting but this doesn't even surprise me, it's probably happened a lot more.

Originally Posted by Cpt.Karnas

It is all about socialism. Obama has no clue on governing this country. I hope that all of you are seeing what he is doing.

You need to look up the definition of socialism if you think the Obama administration is even close.

Originally Posted by Commissar MercZ

lol what

Then again the whole "Obama is a socialist" spheel never seems to die, even after four years of showing he was no where near as such. Why does this even sell in the first place?

For the same reason the majority of Americans thought the USSR was a communist nation instead of the totalitarian dictatorship it was really was - mass propaganda and lies.

[Cpt.Karnas]

You need to look up the definition of socialism if you think the Obama administration is even close.


Let me rephrase that Obama is a Marxist

[Nemmerle]

Because?...