It’s difficult to imagine that he was surprised by the outcome. Posted on 03/03/2013 4:18:03 AM PST by Kaslin
It’s difficult to imagine that he was surprised by the outcome.
But the White House response that ensued after Author and Journalist Bob Woodward dared to question and criticize the President should be an eye-opener to the world. And the fact that America’s beltway media culture has essentially “sided” with the President and seems quite comfortable with the White House hostility is a very telling sign.
Consider the relationship between the presidency and the press over the course of American history. Believe it or not, the White House has been home to lots of outlandish and at times illegal behavior over the past two hundred years or so, much of which was known to White House reporters at the time but was never reported.
I wouldn’t have believed this, necessarily, until I began researching and writing my first book “White House: Confidential” back in 2005. It was at that time that it became glaringly apparent to me that everything changed in this important relationship during the Nixon presidency. And that very necessary change was mostly brought about by Bob Woodward, and his former Washington Post colleague Carl Bernstein.
First Lady Mary Todd Lincoln, wife of President Abraham Lincoln, conducted séances at the White House in an attempt to “contact the spirit” of their son William, who died at the age of twelve while Lincoln was still President. First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt recruited and hired White House reporter Lorena Hickok, and the two of them lived together at the White House in what many believe was a lesbian relationship.
Senator Warren G. Harding was widely known to have had a mistresses and an out-of-wedlock child. So before he was recruited to run for President, his party – the Republican Party – paid the mistress to leave the country until his presidency was completed (she returned after Harding died in office).
President and former Senator James Buchanan, America’s only bachelor President, was known to have shared bedroom quarters during his congressional days with Senator (and future Vice President) William R. King (the press called them “Mr. Buchanan and Aunt Fancy”). And our two Presidents Adams – John, and his son John Quincy- were so ticked-off about being un-elected after one term in office that the both left town a day before their presidencies were completed, and didn’t attend the inaugurations of their respective predecessors.
Was there scandalous behavior at the White House before Richard Nixon arrived? Absolutely. And while historical records suggest that much of it was known to the press, most of it never got reported. Presumably journalists of the day were concerned that such “news” could have been damaging to the presidency, or perhaps to the entire nation.
But everything changed with Nixon – and with Woodward and Bernstein. The two young thirty-something reporters from the Washington Post quickly discovered that the presidency could be a harbinger for serious, and potentially deadly corruption. One can argue that the fraud of the Nixon presidency helped make a lucrative career for Woodward, but Woodward couldn’t have known that while he was in the process of confronting the corruption head-on.
The courage of Woodward still exists today, largely with independent, web-based media operatives like Matt Drudge, James O’Keefe, and those associated with the late Andrew Breitbart. Most in the traditional media, however, have become so comfortable with the thuggish behavior of “”their President” that, rather than express any real concern over this latest episode of abuse, they’ve instead turned on Woodward himself.
There are many very good reasons why Americans’ trust in traditional media is at an all-time low. Consider Bob Woodward’s story as one of them.
“....... Believe it or not, the White House has been home to lots of outlandish and at times illegal behavior”..
You can’t be serious. Yes, there have been a lot of “unusual” stories coming from there but the media is soooooo tightly wraped around the White House for one reason, to keep the door open for themselves as “insiders”. No access, no “scoups”, no stories.
A sickending bunch they are. Never tell the real truth and write what you are told, if you don’t do as “I SAY”, it will get you in trouble. Guess they come from a different upbringing than the rest of us.
BHO uses the power of Satan to command the press to o his bidding. It’s not their fault..../s
Amazingly, JFK is still off limits to many “hard hitting” reporters & columnists, even today, nearly 50 years later.
Any bets on the Warren Commission Report being released in November, let alone without redactions?
Of course, the Clinton shenanigans, women and otherwise, are all hush-hush in this article. Did any other presidents have the body of a close staff member turn up under mysterious circumstances?
Abuse victims people always support their abuser.
No, for "corruption" look no further than the Democrats we pick.
Interesting that the examples noted were of Republican administrations; he did not mention JFK or LBJ, nor the ever-priapic Bill Clinton. The press has been in the tank for the Democrats for the better part of a century, and I doubt there would have been a Watergate scandal if it occurred under a dem president.
And the author should look up the definition of “ harbinger.”
No access, no “scoups”, no stories.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Wasn’t it CNN that BOLDLY made that very summation?
When they were caught either hiding something or being accused of leaking OUR troop movements to the Iraqis their DEFENSE was
“If we were to report all that, they would no longer allow us access, and if that happens we wouldn’t be able to report what was going on”.
So an easy ‘laymans’ summation would be:
“If we told you what we know, ‘THEY’ would no longer give us access to data that we can’t report to you if we had it”
Of course the sheeple all chucked in unison and said, AH yes, I see....
I also think in answer to the hypothetical question
“Would you tip off the Iraqis if you know of a US troop movement etc”,
with the answer generally being
“Well, the US troops have so much more modern technology that it is fair” or some such stupid remark?
These POS MSM propogandist scum are so sychophantically ignorant, they don’t even know they will be the first to be purged upon completion of the a$$ clown’s “transformation”. “Dear Leader” can not afford to allow fools who are so easily fooled and accepting of “well delivered” lies and deceit to hang around “His Brillianceness”, primarily because someone else may come around and “dazzle” them with a more “hopeier” and “changeier” vision of the socialist utopia.
Indeed, and a couple of them were quite lame at that. Mary Todd Lincoln had seances? STFU. I don’t see any mention of how FDR and a complicit press kept his polio from the public. Which is more “outlandish”?
Woodward’s thirst for truth didn’t last long. It seems to have been quenched by Nixon’s exposure. It certainly didn’t compel him to root out the truth in subsequent Presidential scandals.
Woodward’s thirst for truth didn’t last long. It seems to have been quenched by Nixon’s exposure. It certainly didn’t compel him to root out the truth in subsequent Presidential scandals.
The media including Woodward deserve what is coming at them.
They had lots of time and opportunity to look into obama and who he is. The openly campaigned for him and openly worked to destroy his opponants.
They will be destroyed by the very man they put in power and NOW they complain?
The media purge will continue until all opposition voices are silenced. Dictators do that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.