Where is the main stream network media on the truth about the budget sequestration deal proposed by the White House and agreed to by president Obama, "at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011" according to liberal Washington Post columnist Bob Woodward? Yes, that Bob Woodward of the Woodward and Bernstein who brought down Nixon in the Watergate scandal and forced him to resign.
In so many words, Woodward is going against the White House mantra as President Obama stated in the third Presidential Debate when he said, â€œThe sequester is not something that Iâ€™ve proposed, it is something that Congress has proposedâ€ and is saying what the rest of us are saying about Barack, he is flat out lying about budget sequestration.
But that seems to be okay for the White House and President Obama. Their official position on most anything these days is to either brazenly lie as in this case with the budget and in the Benghazi Libya farce or seriously mislead and shift to whatever position is is politically expedient. Conservative David Brooks of the New York Times succinctly stated how the Campaigner in Chief never goes off script when he said this in a recent column:
"Under the Permanent Campaign Shimmy, the president identifies a problem. Then he declines to come up with a proposal to address the problem. Then he comes up with a vague-but-politically-convenient concept that doesnâ€™t address the problem (letâ€™s raise taxes on the rich). Then he goes around the country blasting the opposition for not having as politically popular a concept. Then he returns to Washington and congratulates himself for being the only serious and substantive person in town."
But that quote is from a conservative columnist, what about what the old established liberal icon Bob Woodward has to say about the farce President Obama is running on the whole budget sequestration nonsense? Here below is the main point of Woodward's column which you can read the rest of at The Washington Post:
Misunderstanding, misstatements and all the classic contortions of partisan message management surround the sequester, the term for the $85â€‰billion in ugly and largely irrational federal spending cuts set by law to begin Friday.
What is the non-budget wonk to make of this? Who is responsible? What really happened?
The finger-pointing began during the third presidential debate last fall, on Oct. 22, when President Obama blamed Congress. â€œThe sequester is not something that Iâ€™ve proposed,â€ Obama said. â€œIt is something that Congress has proposed.â€
The White House chief of staff at the time, Jack Lew, who had been budget director during the negotiations that set up the sequester in 2011, backed up the president two days later.
â€œThere was an insistence on the part of Republicans in Congress for there to be some automatic trigger,â€ Lew said while campaigning in Florida. It â€œwas very much rooted in the Republican congressional insistence that there be an automatic measure.â€
The president and Lew had this wrong. My extensive reporting for my book â€œThe Price of Politicsâ€ shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors â€” probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government.
Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.
Nabors has told others that they checked with the president before going to see Reid. A mandatory sequester was the only action-forcing mechanism they could devise. Nabors has said, â€œWe didnâ€™t actually think it would be that hard to convince themâ€ â€” Reid and the Republicans â€” to adopt the sequester. â€œIt really was the only thing we had. There was not a lot of other options left on the table.â€