Bob Woodward: President Obama was “not correct” on sequestration
The Washington Times reports that Bob Woodward is telling anyone who will listen that Obama was “not correct” (read that as a nice way to say “lying”) in regards to his remarks the other night during his debate with Mitt Romney on sequestration – those odious cuts that are due to hit the Defense Department after the first of the year;
Mr. Woodward reports in his book, “The Price of Politics,” that Legislative Affairs Director Rob Nabors and White House Office of Management Director Jack Lew took the “sequestration” proposal to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, and it was then presented to Republicans in Congress.
During Monday’s debate, Mr. Obama said that the sequester is not something that he proposed, “it is something that Congress proposed,” adding that “it will not happen.”
Press secretary Jay Carney, briefing reporters aboard Air Force One on Tuesday, continued with the administration’s line, however.
“What the president said … was a reiteration of what his position has long been,” Carney said. “The sequester that was designed and passed by Congress was never meant to become policy, it was never meant to be implemented.”
In other words, the President lied when he said, quite clearly, that it was not something he proposed, when in fact it was his idea, or the idea of someone in his White House, and he signed off on it when his minions took it to Congress.
He also said “It will not happen”, but that’s hard to believe since it’s legislation passed by Congress, and the Executive Branch is charged with executing legislation, which is where the term “Executive” comes from, I think. So, I’m guessing that either President is lying to himself and us, or he doesn’t understand the process after having the job for four years. Or maybe a little of both.
It also looks like a lame duck Congress isn’t going to be too motivated to stop sequestration when it comes back after the elections.
Of course, sequestration is due to hit our troops hardest. According to their report “Sequestration Cuts Influencing Presidential Picks Of Military Voters, First Command Reports“, the First command Advisory Board writes;
“Military families are understandably concerned about the changes that are coming their way,” said Scott Spiker, CEO of First Command. “At a time when economic concerns continue to weigh heavily on many Americans, servicemembers and their families are facing the added worries of how their lives will be impacted by sequestration, defense cuts and the broader reshaping of the U.S. military.”
I remember the nutrolls we went through that were mandated by Congress in the late 80s, and our troops are understandably concerned these days about their future.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden
And he has the gual to suggest the military voter is on his side.
From an article regarding a recent speech by Congressman Allen West:
“In the 1990s, the United states Navy had 575 naval war vessels. Today, the Navy has about 283,” West said. “With sequestration, we will take the Navy down to 230 naval warships. That is the smallest Navy that we’ve seen since 1915.”
“You can go all the way back to the Phoenicians to modern day, and everyone has understood the means by which you project the strength of a nation is not through an Army, it’s through a strong Navy,” he said later. “The means by which you protect the sea lanes of commerce is not through an Army, it’s through a Navy. You look at what is happening south of our area here, there is no naval presence going down towards South American or Latin America. Why? Because we don’t have enough warships.”
West used history to suggest that the United States is on the verge of repeating history.
“After World War I, what did we do to our military?” he asked the room.
“Cut it,” several people said.
“What came after World War I? World War II. After World War II, what did we do to our military?” he asked.
“Cut it,” the crowd said again.
“And what came after World War II?” he asked.
“Korea,” the room replied.
“After Korea, what did we do to our military? Cut it. And then came the Cold War and Vietnam and things of that nature. And let me tell you — after Desert Shield and Desert Storm, what did we do to our military? We cut it.”
Bob Woodward will still vote straight-ticket Democrat. His pronouncements are just the initial angling for access to a Romney WH in order to find fodder for his next book.
“doesn’t understand the process after having the job for four years” —
Well, you know, if you hire an employee to do something, you should make sure that he understands the entire concept and requirements of the job before you hire him. However, it sometimes happens that even the most careful screenings will not catch someone who is likely to show his affiliation for the Peter Principle quite so soon.
There are those who interview well and are very good at dong the job they’re hired to do.
And then there are those who make a great sales pitch, but snooze through orientation and training and simply never ‘get’ what they’re supposed to do.
And then some poor soul has to come in a fix up the messes they made.
I personally think he knows but he also believes that he should not have to talk to Congress on matters of budget.
From his statements and actions he doesn’t want the division of power. My conspiratorial side even believes that Congresses low approval ratings is a long term effort to normalize the Legislative branches outser.
Yeah…nuts I know. I’m seeing a specialist about it.
Jonn: I’d take issue with sequestration hitting the troops hardest.
Those in uniform will still have jobs when sequestration hits, and will still get paid. But if and when sequestration hits, a lot of government contractors might not be so lucky. And civilian employees may end up feeling it too – either directly through furloughs and/or reductions, or indirectly through reduced budgets for hiring replacements, travel, supplies, maintenance, etc . . . .
Comrades in Arms:
Last night, a group of us from the Armed Forces Retirement Home went over to the Mississippi Coast Convention Center to attend the THIRTY-FOURTH ANNUAL SALUTE TO THE MILITARY.
Here’s the URL where you can read what I wrote, and see my videos and photographs:
http://writesong.blogspot.com/2012/10/thirty-fourth-annual-salute-to-military.html
I also provided a link to our local “SUN-HERALD” newspaper’s web site, which has better photographs and a much better report.
Anyway, the featured speaker was Michael B. Donley, Secretary of the United States Air Force.
In his speech, he talked about sequestration, or whatever.
Unfortunately, I didn’t understand any of this stuff that he was talking about, so I can’t tell you anything about it.
Just check out those web sites and figure it out for yourselves.
I do have my own opinion about our national budget and our contemporary military misadventures in foreign lands.
But, you won’t like what I think, so I reckon I’d be wasting my time arguing about it.
I’m old, I’m exhausted, and I hurt.
Besides, what I think is no secret – – – , you can read all about my unpopular and controversial personal opinions at my own personal web site, “OUR ETERNAL STRUGGLE”.
Thank you.
John Robert Mallernee
Armed Forces Retirement Home
Gulfport, Mississippi 39507
Lt. Fuzz said, “The sequester that was designed and passed by Congress was never meant to become policy, it was never meant to be implemented.”. Well, then, why didn’t The Once speak out and tell Congress that cutting the military to the bone, and then cutting some of the bone, wasn’t what The Once wanted? H/T to Harry Truman’s Secretary of Defense, Louis Johnson. That’s what he’s going to do.
@7. “Unfortunately, I didn’t understand any of this stuff that he was talking about, so I can’t tell you anything about it.”
Mr. Mallernee,
You are a welcome breath of fresh, decent air.
Hey, JRM! You are as welcome as any of the rest of us to express an opinion whether we agree or not. Of course, you are also free to decide when and where you do that. 😉
Enjoyed your pics of the Salute.
Back on topic: I seriously do not like being in the position of assuming that whatever is coming out of his mouth is a lie, but it appears that we have no other choice. Everything he has said about which I have knowledge so far has been a lie, and pretty much everything he has said that I have fact checked is also a lie.
Not sure we have seen anyone so indifferent to the job ever being in such a high position. Even the inept Carter made an effort to do the job. He didn’t do so successfully, but he put in the time, and didn’t appear to measure everything against a political standard instead of what was good for the country.
Read the interview POTUS just did with the Des Moines Register.
“HE PRESIDENT: Well, Rick, let me answer you short term and long term. In the short term, the good news is that there’s going to be a forcing mechanism to deal with what is the central ideological argument in Washington right now, and that is: How much government do we have and how do we pay for it?
So when you combine the Bush tax cuts expiring, the sequester in place, the commitment of both myself and my opponent — at least Governor Romney claims that he wants to reduce the deficit — but we’re going to be in a position where I believe in the first six months we are going to solve that big piece of business”
He not only knows where Sequesterization came from. He WANTS it to come to pass.
Isn’t the sequestration also going to force a reduction in force (RIF) of 100,000 personnel?
That’s a lot of trained people to lose. A lot of unemployment to pay. Vets’ benefits. Less expensive to keep them, no?
Email traffic I’m seeing is talking about giving Soldiers pink slips. Sequestration is going to cut troops because its “easier” to cut personnel than other things. The same thing that happened in the 90s, but not because the legislative and executive branches weren’t doing their jobs (funny, they don’t do their jobs and we lose ours!)
Contracts might be drying up, but contractors are “temporary” positions. They aren’t supposed to be around for 10+ years (like some have been).
It’d be nice if even for once Obama showed some actual courage and said, “Yes, I want to cut the military, I don’t think it needs to be so big” instead of blaming it on Congress or Bush or due to him shooting Bin Laden…
Meanwhile, since he’s been President, BAH took a massive reduction across the board, Combat Pay and Hazardous Duty Pay became “daily” instead of “monthly” (possibly saving hundreds), Tricare fees are going up, the military didn’t get paid for a week (due to no budget being signed), he hasn’t signed a budget since being President, SecDef flies home at 33K? a trip and then helps cut funding to military personnel, Soldiers getting seats for schooling towards the end of the FY are getting cancelled out due to budgets running out (happened at least two years now), and of course sequestration is happening, which will naturally “attack” the military instead of things like Senate/House paychecks.
Then of course you have the problem where people will vote for the guy their party picks, not vote for the person who can do the best job. (Heaven forbid a president isn’t picked because people “like” him as if he’s a mouse click option on facebook.)
Eric: many if not most contractors working for the Federal government are due to past privatization efforts. This has resulted in the virtual elimination of Federal blue-collar jobs, and a substantial “plus up” of white-collar staff with contractor augmentation that would otherwise have been a federal civilian (or in DoD, possibly someone in uniform).
The bottom line is that supporting contractors in many federal organizations – including many in DoD – are now as essential to the mission as are civilian and military personnel. Many organizations will be seriously hurting if they lose their supporting contractors.
And you’re correct in observing that sequestration will potentially cause loss of military and civilian jobs as well. My guess is that those will come later in the year if they happen at all, though.
Eric, I believe you are talking about the QSP board that is going on right now. It is where they are looking to find a reason to give Soldiers the boot. One of the reasons is stagnent promotion. It is where they are looking at SFCs that have not gotten promoted in 4 years even though, if I remember correctly, last year’s promotion rate to E-8 was around 4% of those eligible.
The President is being disingenuous on several levels on this issue, not only was it clear the proposals came from the White House if the President had serious misgivings about the issue he did not have to sign this budget. He could have told Congress he would not sign a budget that forced massive cuts across the board and instead insisted that Congress do their job as defined and on time like the private sector has to or lose money.
It is always amazing to me when we enter a government contract if we don’t deliver on time we lose money daily (we have never missed a delivery date), but the government places no such strictures on itself for performance to standard or for paying its’ obligations with the same standard it expects from its private contractors. In our business it has meant that we have pretty much stopped bidding on certain government projects because we are better off dealing with Fortune 500s than the government with respect to on time payments for services/products. The struggle to compete for low margin/low bid commodity work only to be paid late, versus bidding on high margin/relationship sales of custom product that is paid in 30 days on invoice is a no brainer.
It would be nice if Congress held itself to the same standard it demands of the private sector, or even the same standards it applies to other Federal employees with respect to performance standards.
Boy I can see why Woodward is a Pulitzer prize winner. The President was wrong on an issue, what insight. Next he will uncover that they lied about Bengazi and tried to cover it up or some other crazy stuff like that. Print media today can not be beat by you internet hacks, that for sure.