My bad on the name. I need to go be a productive citizen, but here's the exchange from Politico.
And the reply from Woodward: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.
Again, I ask, how on Earth was that threatening?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
So because it's Woodward we're supposed to just take his word for it? Which word? The one where he said he was threatened or the response where he said, "I for one welcome a little heat" and "You do not ever have to apologize to me"?
I'm sorry, but this isn't a story. This is an attention-grab.
Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed - Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei - POLITICO.com