The latest development in the war of words between the Obama administration and legendary journalist Bob Woodward took place Wednesday, on the MSNBC program Morning Joe, when Woodward tore into the president, calling his behavior in regard to his handling of the sequester "madness," according to Mediaite.
At host Joe Scarborough's request, Woodward recapped the fight with the Obama administration, which centers on who proposed the sequester first. Woodward then announced that the White House has conceded the point that the idea of the sequester did originally come from the Obama administration.
The Washington Post journalist, most famous for helping to break the Watergate scandal during the Nixon administration, proceeded to go after Obama in a way few would have expected.
The Inquisitr quotes Woodward as saying, "I think peoples' heads are about to explode about all of this, you know, what the hell is going on here," Woodward said. "I'm not sure the White House understands exactly what happened in all of these negotiations at the end of 2011 with the sequester and the super committee, because they were really on the sidelines."
It is somewhat ironic to hear remarks like these coming from Bob Woodward, considering the fact that he seemed to be on such good terms with the president, previous to this dust-up. The administration treated him as a favorite, giving the journalist generous access to the White House.
Woodward fervently criticized Obama's comments stating that the "sequester cuts would force an American aircraft carrier to not deploy to the Persian Gulf." Woodward suggested that other presidents such as Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton would not have allowed a budget document to interfere with matters of national security.
"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,'" mocked Woodward. "That's a kind of madness that I haven't seen in a long time."
It is refreshing to see a seemingly unbiased reporter these days. Woodward appears to have no reservations about holding a president's feet to the fire, whether they be Republican or Democrat. Hopefully, this will inspire his colleagues to do the same.
Bob Woodward by Jim Wallace (Smithsonian Institution), via Wikimedia Commons
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 26
It is in deed refreshing to see some real reporting. In fact I have heard that threats have been made against Woodward for this...
It is not even a cut to spending!
Put it in perspective - every year, you get a raise - it is always 10%.
Suddenly you learn, this year you will only get a 9.8% raise (20 -ercent of the plan).
Can you still eat? Pay the Mortgage? pay utilities?
I hope Woodward digs even deeper!
I'd like to see him dig deeper, as well...I advise caution, though...there is something IN it for him. I've the feeling he's sharpening his Fangs as we speak..
These morons aren't fit to run a Brassiere Boutique...
I too, am glad that someone is digging in to try and sort out the insanity of this administration...wish more would follow his lead...
If the president thought that criminals would roam the street if the sequester went through, he should not have proposed it and signed it into law.
Now the GOP says it doesn't matter and the President is insisting it still does.
"Obama isn't a dictator" How would you define a "dictator"?
Of all that needed to sign this into law the house is but 1/4 or 1/3 depending on how you calculate the authority needed to pass this thing, yet you seem like you are putting all of the blame on republicans and giving democrats a pass?
They are all at fault. And the fault does not stop there it goes back decades. But this is the problem, we will fix this thing, now or after a real crash that will make the great depression look like a seasonal correction.
Do you understand the magnitude of our situation? Do you think we have a problem? What is your solution?
Or was your comment an example of:
"Drive by liberalizing"