1 hour ago Bob Woodward says he was threatened by White House

[BobaFett1]

(CNN) - Veteran journalist Bob Woodward said Wednesday he was threatened by a senior Obama administration official following his reporting on the White House's handling of the forced federal spending cuts set to take effect on Friday.

"They're not happy at all," he said on CNN's "The Situation Room," adding that an e-mail from a senior administration official - who he would not name - communicated a message which caused him great concern.



"It was said very clearly, you will regret doing this," he said.

According to a Democrat aware of the situation, Gene Sperling, director of the National Economic Council, sent the email Woodward cited.

Woodward and Sperling have known one another for decades, dating back to the time Sperling served as a top economic adviser in various posts during the Clinton administration.

Woodward penned a 2012 book reporting that the idea for the spending cuts, known as the sequester, originated with the White House. It's a claim President Barack Obama originally denied, but the White House has since acknowledged.

But it was language that he used in an op-ed published over the weekend in The Washington Post that drew what he said was the Obama administration response.

"[W] hen the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts," Woodward wrote. "His call for a balanced approach is reasonable, and he makes a strong case that those in the top income brackets could and should pay more. But that was not the deal he made."

Headlined "Obama's sequester deal-changer," it was widely cited by Republicans seeking to avert the across-the-board cuts without a tax increase.

"The fundamental question here the president has to decide - does he wanna be president of a political party or does he want to be president of the United States?" House Speaker John Boehner asked at a Tuesday news conference. "It is time for leadership."

Obama, however, has argued for an approach that "balances" spending cuts and tax increases.

"I've laid out a plan that details how we can pay down our deficit in a way that's balanced and responsible," he said at an event in Virginia the same day. "We have the plan right on a website, the White House website. Everybody can go see it. It details exactly how we can cut programs that don't work, how we can raise money by closing loopholes that are only serving a few, as opposed to the average American."

While the days now turn to hours before the cuts kick in on Friday, Republicans and Democrats have not engaged in the sort of negotiations they have held before deadlines in previous fiscal crises.

CNN extended multiple invitations to the White House to appear on the "The Situation Room," including after Woodward began his interview, but the invitations were not accepted.

But a White House official who would not speak if named said late Wednesday, "Of course no threat was intended."

The official said the email Woodward referenced "was sent to apologize for voices being raised in their previous conversation. The note suggested that Mr. Woodward would regret the observation he made regarding the sequester because that observation was inaccurate, nothing more. And Mr. Woodward responded to this aide's email in a friendly manner."

White House adviser David Plouffe, meanwhile, expressed disappointment in Woodward's recent comments over Twitter Wednesday night.


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/27/bob-woodward-says-he-was-threatened-by-white-house/?hpt=hp_t1

[DarrinS]

Lol at current HuffPost headline

DRAMA KING! WOODWARD CRIES FOUL... RUNS TO HANNITY?

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1013736/thumbs/r-WOODWARD-2-huge.jpg

[boutons_deux]

"you will regret doing this"

that's a THREAT? :lol

[Th'Pusher]

http://m.politico.com/iphone/story/0213/88226.html

emails released. Gotta say Woodward does kinda sound like a drama queen.

[DarrinS]

"you will regret doing this"

that's a THREAT? :lol





How is it anything other than a threat?

[DarrinS]

Left reflexively defends Precious, er POTUS

The Night Planet Liberalism Turned on Bob Woodward

http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/27/the-night-planet-liberalism-turned-on-bo

[BobaFett1]

Funny seeing the liberal guy mad.

[DarrinS]

Matthew Yglesias (https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/306953371573698560), Slate:

Woodward's managed to make me suspect Nixon got a raw deal.


lol

[LnGrrrR]

I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim.

Oh my God! Is Woodward in the Federal Witness Protection Program yet? Does he have armed guards? His life is at stake, people!

[DarrinS]

Don't go off message. Just ask Juan Williams

[boutons_deux]

How is it anything other than a threat?

R I F

threat from what? by whom? This could be harmless as "you are on the wrong side of this issue, you will regret it (when Americans knows the facts and the serious damages the Repugs are forcing on to America)

[Th'Pusher]

LnGrrrR quoted the 'threat'. Woodward is being a melodramatic pussy of epic proportions.

[boutons_deux]

Bob Woodward Emails Show White House 'Threat' Was Not So Threatening


Woodward made waves on Wednesday night when he took to CNN and Politico (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/27/bob-woodward-white-house-threatened-sequester_n_2777681.html?utm_hp_ref=media) to accuse the White House of deploying heavy-handed tactics with him after he questioned the Obama administration's account of the negotiations over the looming budget sequester. Sperling -- who he did not name at the time -- had told him he'd "regret" moving forward with his narrative, Woodward said, making it clear that he saw this as a threat.

"It makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters, you're going to regret doing something that you believe in," he told Wolf Blitzer. The White House told The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/27/woodward-obama-aide_n_2778007.html) that Sperling was merely trying to tell Woodward he would regret writing something that was inaccurate.

On Thursday morning, Politico released the text of the email exchange between Woodward and Sperling. The emails look to be a far cry from the kind of thuggery that Woodward implied.
Here's an excerpt from Sperling:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/28/bob-woodward-emails-white-house-threat_n_2781052.html?utm_hp_ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=022813&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

BW is grandstanding, "look at me, I get emails from the WH, pay attention, I'm BOB FUCKING WOODWARD, RESPEK!.

[DarrinS]

LnGrrrR quoted the 'threat'. Woodward is being a melodramatic pussy of epic proportions.

Man, you guys are a bunch of lemmings. Talk about groupthink

[LnGrrrR]

Man, you guys are a bunch of lemmings. Talk about groupthink

:lmao Coming from you, that's pretty priceless.

That said, did you read the email? Did you really think it was threatening?

(Here's a hint: You can use the word regret without it being a threat, like, "I regret not buying the chalupa meal instead of the burrito meal.")

[ChumpDumper]

How is it anything other than a threat?What do you think he is being threatened with, Darrin?

A vicious YouTubing?

[DarrinS]

:lmao Coming from you, that's pretty priceless.

That said, did you read the email? Did you really think it was threatening?

(Here's a hint: You can use the word regret without it being a threat, like, "I regret not buying the chalupa meal instead of the burrito meal.")


Life threatening? No. Bodily harm? No. Threats come in many forms. I just don't think its good form for the WH to be making threats to any journalists. Probably not too smart to pick on a very famous one, either.

[ChumpDumper]

Life threatening? No. Bodily harm? No. Threats come in many forms. I just don't think its good form for the WH to be making threats to any journalists. Probably not too smart to pick on a very famous one, either.Bob's reply shows how terrified he is of this threat tbh.
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.

[DarrinS]

Bob's reply shows how terrified he is of this threat tbh.

Point missed. Color me shocked

[ChumpDumper]

Point missed. Color me shockedGive an example of something this particular official can threaten Bob Woodard with.

Make your point, Darrin.

[ChumpDumper]

Had I Woodward's ear, I'd tell him he might regret characterizing this as a threat. I have nothing to threaten him with.

See how that worked?

[Clipper Nation]

Tbh, the Obama administration is pretty lame for trying to bully journalists, but let's not pretend that message is the huge, menacing threat it's been made out to be....

[boutons_deux]

Bob Woodward: "they're gonna send me to "sleep with fishes" in the Potomac, eaten by crabs"

[boutons_deux]

Tbh, the Obama administration is pretty lame for trying to bully journalists, but let's not pretend that message is the huge, menacing threat it's been made out to be....

"Watch what you say" famously by dubya's mouthpiece, Ari Fleischer

[DarrinS]

Bob Woodward: "they're gonna send me to "sleep with fishes" in the Potomac, eaten by crabs"


You guys are kicking that straw man's ass

[ChumpDumper]

Give an example of something this particular official can threaten Bob Woodard with.

Make your point, Darrin.

[BobaFett1]

R I F

threat from what? by whom? This could be harmless as "you are on the wrong side of this issue, you will regret it (when Americans knows the facts and the serious damages the Repugs are forcing on to America)

I assume Dems are so angelic. Bouton drinking the kool aid.

[BobaFett1]

Point missed. Color me shocked

ChumpDumper Iq is limited.

[Clipper Nation]

"Watch what you say" famously by dubya's mouthpiece, Ari Fleischer
Dubya's administration was just as bad, but ultimately irrelevant to this thread, tbh....

[ChumpDumper]

ChumpDumper Iq is limited.lol impeachment

[Oh, Gee!!]

my mom used to tell me that I would regret certain choices I made as a teen. she was right.

[EVAY]

I certainly didn't read the email from Sperling as much more than an apology, tbh. The 'threat' quote seems to be saying the same thing as predicting to someone that if they publicly espouse a position that is verifiably false, they may end up with egg on their face.

That is how I interpret it, in the context of the entire email.

Woodward is pretty arrogant. The Obama administration is pretty arrogant.

They are all drama queens, imo.

[spursncowboys]

I certainly didn't read the email from Sperling as much more than an apology, tbh. The 'threat' quote seems to be saying the same thing as predicting to someone that if they publicly espouse a position that is verifiably false, they may end up with egg on their face.

That is how I interpret it, in the context of the entire email.

Woodward is pretty arrogant. The Obama administration is pretty arrogant.

They are all drama queens, imo.
That's kind of how I feel. I do like how Woodward is going after the Obama admin like he did the Bush admin. Taking Nixon down like he did probably gave him a pretty big complex. But anyone who thinks they can be president are in the same category. All egos. But in this situation, it works to our (the people) advantage to have someone who just wants to go after presidents, regardless of party affiliation.

[ChumpDumper]

Really, the worst thing "the white house" could do is not talk to him anymore. Really didn't stop him when "the white house" did it last time, though.

[in2deep]

"you will regret it" those words coming from a person in power is a threat.

Only an idiot would disagree here.

had those same words come from a homeless on the street, then I'd say the guy is a dramaqueen

[clambake]

only an idiot would think that guy has more power than woodward.

[z0sa]

Definitely a threat. Threats can be to people's access in terms of a journalist.

[in2deep]

only an idiot would think that guy has more power than woodward.

Who said he did? It's irrelevant. One is a journalist, the other what a person who is serving office? that is an official position of power

[ChumpDumper]

Definitely a threat. Threats can be to people's access in terms of a journalist.If that's all it was, it's not threadworthy tbh. This happens all the time.

[in2deep]

If that's all it was, it's not threadworthy tbh. This happens all the time.

murder happens all the time too. Is that not threadworthy too?

[ChumpDumper]

murder happens all the time too. Is that not threadworthy too?If this guy none of us have ever heard of murdered Bob Woodward, it would be threadworthy.

And yeah, when you think about it, most murders aren't really threadworthy.

[z0sa]

If that's all it was, it's not threadworthy tbh. This happens all the time.

True, just not to Bob Woodward.

[spursncowboys]

This doesn't really happen all the time...


Another member of the Washington political media stepped forward Thursday to claim he was threatened by the Obama White House, shortly after the White House denied reports that an adviser threatened famed Watergate journalist Bob Woodward. The latest claim comes from Lanny Davis, who served as counsel to former President Bill Clinton and later went on to write a column for The Washington Times. In a radio interview on WMAL (http://www.wmal.com/common/page.php?pt=WMAL+EXCLUSIVE%3A+Woodward%27s+Not+Alo ne+-+Fmr.+Clinton+Aide+Davis+Says+He+Received+White+Ho use+Threat&id=8924&is_corp=0)http://global.fncstatic.com/static/v/all/img/external-link.png, Davis said that a "senior Obama White House official" once called his editor at the Times and said that if the paper continued to run his columns, "his reporters would lose their credentials."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/28/white-house-denies-staffer-threatened-watergate-journalist-woodward/#ixzz2MFC0e3BY

[ChumpDumper]

True, just not to Bob Woodward.Definitely did with the last president.
This doesn't really happen all the time...

[/FONT][/COLOR]Are you sure?

[Nbadan]

Bob Woodward has gone Full Breitbart. And everybody knows you never go Full Breitbart.

THU FEB 28, 2013 AT 08:53 AM PST
Woodward Goes Full Breitbart
by Troubadour


Right around the time a decade ago when Bob Woodward started portraying psychotic puppet-emperor George W. Bush (who one might easily think was the inspiration for Joffrey Baratheon in Game of Thrones) as some kind of bold, iconoclastic visionary rather than the cartoonishly cruel and vindictive parasite his every word and deed advertised, I began to doubt that Mr. Woodward was indeed the intrepid paragon of journalistic virtue and truth-telling indicated by Robert Redford in All the President's Men.

Now with recent events, I'm forced to wonder if maybe Carl Bernstein had been the brains of that particular operation, and Woodward just some random hack on the paper who had been assigned to work with him. Given what I've seen of this guy in my lifetime, the idea that his role in breaking Watergate was some kind of real-life Being There begins to seem increasingly plausible. Seriously, look up Bernstein's resume since Watergate and compare it with Woodward's - it's not even close. One is a journalistic ninja, and the other is the guy who wrote four incredibly charitable contemporary books about the Bush regime with its full cooperation and permission before being involved in the Plame affair.

Well, I guess he's not done with...doing whatever the hell it is he does. Because now, as noted on the Front Page, Woodward has publicly interpreted an innocuous email conversation with a White House official as containing ominous threats and intimidation meant to silence journalism. The FP piece does well enough showing the fact that the claim is complete bullshit, but coming as it does so close on the heels of Woodward's unfavorable comparison of Obama with (you guessed it) George W. Bush just makes it that much more egregious and disgraceful. He conjured this nonsense out of thin air while defending a murdering, torturing, psychotic dictator who spent every single day stomping his foot in the face of this country.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/28/1190472/-Woodward-Goes-Full-Breitbart

[spursncowboys]

Definitely did with the last president.Are you sure?

No...I'm absolutely positive it didn't it the Bush WH. So you are saying in the past five years.

Do you think it does?

[spursncowboys]

Bob Woodward has gone Full Breitbart. And everybody knows you never go Full Breitbart.

THU FEB 28, 2013 AT 08:53 AM PST
Woodward Goes Full Breitbart
by Troubadour

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/28/1190472/-Woodward-Goes-Full-Breitbart

I didn't even know dailykos was still around...

[ChumpDumper]

No...I'm absolutely positive it didn't it the Bush WH.
June 28, 2007
Reporter's press pass revoked by Bush staff

WPRI-TV, Channel 12 reporter Jarrod Holbrook had his White House press pass snatched today after he shouted “Mr. President” twice as President Bush greeted Air and Army National Guardsmen gathered on the tarmac at Quonset airport in North Kingstown.

A member of the president’s entourage pointed at Holbrook after he first tried to get Bush’s attention. The man then ripped the pass from Holbrook’s belt after he shouted to the president, who was less then 10 feet away, again.

Holbrook said afterward that he just wanted to ask Bush how he enjoyed his visit to Rhode Island. Members of the media were not told they could not ask the president questions.http://www.beloblog.com/ProJo_Blogs/newsblog/archives/2007/06/post_939.html

Whoops.

[ChumpDumper]

The Washington Post’s Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts write about NBC affiliate (and sometimes MSNBC) reporter Steve Handelsman getting his White House press credentials yanked for three weeks…

On the day of June 5, the execs and an NBC intern were cleared to enter the White House, where they watched Handelsman broadcast live from the lawn, then accompanied him to the almost-finished new briefing room and upper press office. While standing near press sec Tony Snow’s office, they caught the eye of the Secret Service officer guarding the Oval Office, who indicated they could come down the hall, where they chatted and stared into the empty office (President Bush was in Prague) for less than a minute.

Beware, unsuspecting gawkers! Turns out those few crucial steps are considered a no-press zone, although Handelsman (and plenty of others) has walked it many times since the Reagan administration. Another Secret Service officer spotted the group and filed a report; the tour was deemed “unauthorized,” resulting in the suspension for Handelsman, whose pass was reinstated Monday.http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2007/07/12/nbcs-handelsman-has-white-house-press-credential-revoked/

Whoops.

Semantic argument to follow.

[spursncowboys]

Woodward's four Bush books were pretty anti Bush. If you saw how he talked to Rove, and how he talks about Bush in all the liberal shows when he wrote those books, he didn't personally like the guy.

[Nbadan]

No...I'm absolutely positive it didn't it the Bush WH. So you are saying in the past five years.

Do you think it does?


:lmao

[DarrinS]

According to latest media reports, the onset of senility begins with fact-checking Precious.

[ChumpDumper]

TO: WHCA
FR: Steve Scully [head of WHCA]
RE: Embargo on Briefing Room Photos

As indicated in an e-mail last week, The White House has placed an embargo on all photos of the new briefing room until Monday, January 9th [sic - I think they mean July 9]. I am trying to convince them to ease up on that in order to allow release of photos the weekend prior to our move-back date.

But please note the following from Josh Deckard in WH Press.

Questions…let me know.

—–Original Message—–
From: Deckard, Josh [Executive Office of the President]
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 10:30 AM
To: mills nytimes; redmonds ap; SCULLY, STEVE;
Peter Doherty abc
Cc: Sforza, Scott N.
Subject: ASAP

Press are NOT allowed to photograph the brief room during this transition- they aren’t even supposed to be in there. Press took pictures this morning and got very rude w/ the workers when they asked them to stop.

Please make sure those pictures don’t run.

If anyone breaks this rule from here on out they will lose their pass.

Thankshttp://americablog.com/2007/06/white-house-correspondents-association-caves-again.html

Whoops.

[ChumpDumper]

According to latest media reports, the onset of senility begins with fact-checking Precious.Butthurt begins with being exposed by a fact-check.

[DarrinS]

Facinating to watch young journos throw their former hero under the bus. And over what?

[spursncowboys]

:lmao

No thinkprogress or dailykos article?

[DarrinS]

Butthurt begins with being exposed by a fact-check.

The only good fact check is one done erroneously during a presidential debate.

[ChumpDumper]

The only good fact check is one done erroneously during a presidential debate.It's always good when you get butthurt about it.

You're even getting butthurt on behalf of another poster.

[spursncowboys]

http://www.beloblog.com/ProJo_Blogs/newsblog/archives/2007/06/post_939.html

Whoops.

:lmao that's your tit-for-tat. A local reporter compared to a clinton wh insider? Yeah that seems legit. Good find. I also bet you never said anything bad about Bush either

[ChumpDumper]

Facinating to watch young journos throw their former hero under the bus. And over what?For being a drama queen. I would have reacted the same had it come from the Bush White House.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao that's your tit-for-tat. A local reporter compared to a clinton wh insider? Yeah that seems legit. Good find. I also bet you never said anything bad about Bush eitherI'll let you catch up and refine your semantics.

[spursncowboys]

http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2007/07/12/nbcs-handelsman-has-white-house-press-credential-revoked/

Whoops.

Semantic argument to follow.
:lmao

Whoops is right...Wow I sure do have egg on my face...

:lol I guess this works perfect as a control because the press treated the bush presidency and obama presidency the same... :toast

[DarrinS]

There is prob a statue of this guy at every major journalism school, but now he's gone full birther. lol

[ChumpDumper]

Woodward was as much an insider in the Bush administration to start out. Worked pretty well for Bush at first.

[ChumpDumper]

There is prob a statue of this guy at every major journalism school, but now he's gone full birther. lolEh, you're doing your best to try and make a big deal out of it like a good little hack.

Let the others on your mailing list know.

[DarrinS]

For being a drama queen. I would have reacted the same had it come from the Bush White House.

It definitely warranted top billing on HuffPo. Story of the year, tbh.

[ElNono]

If anything, the whole thing reeks of lack of professionalism... screaming on the phone? email to apologize? the WH doesn't have to pay attention to anybody they don't want to. But you would at least expect certain professionalism handling an area like the media.

[spursncowboys]

I'll let you catch up and refine your semantics.

G2y8Sx4B2Sk

A local reporter yelling at a president does not equal a former Clinton WH insider's editor being told by BHO's WH to stop the negative articles or they will lose their press credentials.

Very ironic that you of all people would be using the semantics argument

[DarrinS]

Eh, you're doing your best to try and make a big deal out of it like a good little hack.

Let the others on your mailing list know.

The big deal was made by the Obamaphiles in the media.

[spursncowboys]

You're using people losing their press credentials in the same with someone threatening to take them away... Way to stay on topic as always! :toast

[spursncowboys]

Woodward was as much an insider in the Bush administration to start out. Worked pretty well for Bush at first.

:yieldWoodward was a bush insider???? Wow...Just wow... I got nothing...It's all you

[DMX7]

It definitely warranted top billing on HuffPo. Story of the year, tbh.

There's a new "top billing" story on HuffPo every 45 minutes.

[DarrinS]

There's a new "top billing" story on HuffPo every 45 minutes.

This one never should've sniffed it.

[clambake]

soldier boy is afraid for woodward.

no wonder we had to pay them not to kill him.

[Th'Pusher]

Press corps calling Woodward a swollen vag: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/02/consensus-white-house-didnt-threaten-woodward-158172.html?hp=f1

[ploto]

Are some of you really trying to claim that you have never known someone about to do something stupid and told him that he will one day regret it?

[spursncowboys]

Are some of you really trying to claim that you have never known someone about to do something stupid and told him that he will one day regret it?
It was after the fact. He's also a senior wh admin.
What Woodward said tonight was that he has credibility so they can't really do much. But he has gotten alot of emails from young journalists who have gotten the same treatment and they cave in.

[z0sa]

Definitely did with the last president.Are you sure?

Well played. Nothing to say except the email was unnecessary. Along with this thread.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao

Whoops is right...Wow I sure do have egg on my face...

:lol I guess this works perfect as a control because the press treated the bush presidency and obama presidency the same... :toast

"The press?" I know its fun to act like its Fox News, the Washington Times, and 'the press,' but gmfb.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is the email in question in it's entirety where I have bolded the entire sentence in question.


Bob:

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. It was an accepted part of the understanding — from the start. Really. It was assumed by the Rs on the Supercommittee that came right after: it was assumed in the November-December 2012 negotiations. There may have been big disagreements over rates and ratios — but that it was supposed to be replaced by entitlements and revenues of some form is not controversial. (Indeed, the discretionary savings amount from the Boehner-Obama negotiations were locked in in BCA: the sequester was just designed to force all back to table on entitlements and revenues.)

I agree there are more than one side to our first disagreement, but again think this latter issue is diffferent. Not out to argue and argue on this latter point. Just my sincere advice. Your call obviously.

My apologies again for raising my voice on the call with you. Feel bad about that and truly apologize.

Gene

This is the response:


From Woodward to Sperling on Feb. 23, 2013

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

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/exclusive-the-woodward-sperling-emails-revealed-88226.html

If Woodward really is asserting that the point of the sequester was not to force the two sides to negotiate a bargain or that said bargain would not include cuts and taxes then I don't know wtf.

[Wild Cobra]

"you will regret doing this"

that's a THREAT? :lol



Absolutely. The question is, that is the threat level?

[SA210]

:lmao The President actually murders American citizens without proof, charges, trial or any due process whatsoever, he mass murders innocent civilians including women and children every week almost, just wipes their existence off the face of the earth..he throws whistle-blowers in jail more than ALL Presidents in HISTORY combined... Gibbs just admitted he was ordered by the White House to NEVER even admit that a drone program exists..

But to simply threaten a reporter???? Nah, he'd NEVER do that...


:rollin morons

[boutons_deux]

Absolutely. The question is, that is the threat level?

http://www.edwards-signals.com/images/lg/hsl_bluegrid_flag.jpg

[boutons_deux]

http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/word/image8.jpg

off the bottom of chart: Wild Cobra's shriveled dick

[boutons_deux]

BW goes full-blown right-wing-batshit nuts

Bob Woodward Agrees With Hannity: Journalists Should Ask Obama About Bill Ayers

HANNITY: The fact that the president was never asked a lot about the 6 trillion in debt that he accumulated prior to this election, in this first election wasn’t asked about his association with Bill Ayers was troublesome to me, I think we’ve got a media that’s not as critical as perhaps it once was in, for example, the days of Watergate.

WOODWARD: Well, I agree with that. We need to be very aggressive and it’s one of the judges that said democracies die in darkness and I really think that’s true.

http://thinkprogress.org/media/2013/02/28/1656601/bob-woodward-agrees-with-hannity-journalists-should-ask-obama-about-bill-ayers/

"the days of Watergate." Woodward peaked early!

Yoni agrees! :lol

"democracies die in darkness" :lol

TRUTH AND LIGHT and THE AMERICAN WAY shine forth from Fox Repug Propaganda network and out of Roger Ailes' ass! :lol

[BobaFett1]

Media love me some Obama.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So it turns out there was no threat.. and the resident dummies are still claiming it was...

[George Gervin's Afro]

Come to think of it.. we have the same people creaming themselves because of a supposed threat... yet those same people were ok with outing a CIA agent..

threat..lol

[DarrinS]

I've watched several interviews of Woodward and can't find a single one where he states "I was threatened". Story is not even reported factually.

[spursncowboys]

So it turns out there was no threat.. and the resident dummies are still claiming it was...

So are we taking Woodward's comments to be credible now that it isn't a threat. Because he does state that the WH is bullying the press and Obama lied... Further that he is for the press being aggressive towards the president, which he believes they aren't.

[Th'Pusher]

But after I posted a link to the email exchange, you said:


How is it anything other than a threat?

[boutons_deux]

I've watched several interviews of Woodward and can't find a single one where he states "I was threatened". Story is not even reported factually.

The bogus "threat" was in an email. You are not even informed factually.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So are we taking Woodward's comments to be credible now that it isn't a threat. Because he does state that the WH is bullying the press and Obama lied... Further that he is for the press being aggressive towards the president, which he believes they aren't.

you will accept anything that makes this administration look bad... define bullying the press and then maybe we can discuss this intelligently

[DarrinS]

I've watched several interviews of Woodward and can't find a single one where he states "I was threatened". Story is not even reported factually.


You be the judge. I think the entire thing is mischaracterized.

g1RT7H6eoLc

[sjacquemotte]

Unlike you with bush, I am against what I disagree with and not a party.

[DarrinS]

Unlike you with bush, I am against what I disagree with and not a party.

Who are you talking to?

[sjacquemotte]

Bullying the press: imo calling up an editor and telling them not to let his reporters be negative of Obama. Telling reporters there will be repercussions of they push a negative line of questioning. Kicking a journalist out of the press corp

[sjacquemotte]

Who are you talking to?

Gga

[George Gervin's Afro]

Unlike you with bush, I am against what I disagree with and not a party.

It was never bullying to begin with so this is a stupid thread.

[Th'Pusher]

You be the judge. I think the entire thing is mischaracterized.

g1RT7H6eoLc
Then why did you say, how is it anything other than a threat?

[DarrinS]

Then why did you say, how is it anything other than a threat?


I read too many articled penned by the liberal freakout machine.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I read too many articled penned by the liberal freakout machine.

lol...fox news// liberal freakout machine..

[DarrinS]

lol...fox news// liberal freakout machine..



The Night Planet Liberalism Turned on Bob Woodward

Matt Welch|Feb. 27, 2013 11:29 pm



It has been a special night on Twitter for those of us who take a perverse interest in the way that ideologically aligned journalists and politicos will pack-attack critics of a sitting American president. Seems that Washington Post investigative-journalism legend Bob Woodward crossed a bridge too far when, in talking about reaction to his narrative-debunking Feb. 22 piece pinning the origination of the sequester directly on a White House that had vociferously denied paternity, has now gone on to dish on a "senior White House official" (later identified as White House Economic Council Director Gene Sperling) who "yelled at me for about a half hour" about the op-ed, and warned that "I think you will regret staking out that claim."

Sperling's "threat" (if you can call it that) ranks a bit low on the things-to-be-worried-about totem pole, and Woodward is hardly an infallible source (here's my 2006 column comparing him to Judith Miller), but the reaction tonight from the leftosphere has been something to behold. A sampling:

Josh Marshall, TPM:
Who goes birther first, Scalia or Woodward? :lol


David Plouffe, recently of the White House:
Watching Woodward last 2 days is like imagining my idol Mike Schmidt facing live pitching again. Perfection gained once is rarely repeated.


Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation:
Smart interns & young folks have no idea who Woodward is but dc establishment freaked about his critique of WH & sequester.


Neera Tanden, Center for American Progress:
My amateur advice: stop cooperating with Woodward in the first place.


Jason Linkins, Huffington Post:
I think Woodward will find people will stop yelling at him the very minute he decides to stop sucking so much at his job.


Dan Froomkin, Center for Accountability Journalism:
Telling egotist Woodward "I think you will regret staking out that claim" isn't a threat; it's just not realistic.


Matthew Yglesias, Slate:
Woodward's managed to make me suspect Nixon got a raw deal.




A24Q0IXy5zw

[101A]

The amount of demonization of Woodward by Obama allies (both in the admin, and elsewhere among Washington establishment), is astonishing to watch.

Hypothetically, making good on a threat might very well look like this.

[Th'Pusher]

I read too many articled penned by the liberal freakout machine.
But I gave you a direct link to the email thread in question. Safe to say you were not interested in hearing it from the horses mouth. You liked the Obama threatens Woodward narrative.

[ChumpDumper]

:yieldWoodward was a bush insider???? Wow...Just wow... I got nothing...It's all youI've pointed out just how ignorant you are already, but I'll go further.

Woodward was granted the same access to Bush that he did with Clinton so he could write a similar book about the policies of his early presidency like he did with Clinton. 9/11 happened and of course the book's focus changed drastically. The result was Bush at War -- which you didn't read. So yeah, if you're going to call Woodward a Clinton insider, you have to accept he was a Bush insider as well.

You can whine and try to deflect, but you can't change facts.

Furthermore, had you read Bush at War, which you didn't, you'd know it was hugely positive regarding Bush and his administration. So much so that it pissed off the liberals back then too and subjected Woodward to the kind of treatment you see today. No one told you or Darrin how to feel about it then, so you just carried on with your lives.

[spursncowboys]

Woodward was granted the same access to Bush that he did with Clinton so he could write a similar book about the policies of his early presidency like he did with Clinton. 9/11 happened and of course the book's focus changed drastically. The result was Bush at War -- which you didn't read. So yeah, if you're going to call Woodward a Clinton insider, you have to accept he was a Bush insider as well.


Furthermore, had you read Bush at War, which you didn't, you'd know it was hugely positive regarding Bush and his administration. So much so that it pissed off the liberals back then too and subjected Woodward to the kind of treatment you see today. No one told you or Darrin how to feel about it then, so you just carried on with your lives.
I wasn't stating Woodward was a Clinton insider. I think all his books were based on research. He didn't research any of his books with a final political point he was aiming at. It had very good reviews. However it wasn't as Bush bashing as his next three, so I could see where you might not of liked it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't know the tone of most of those books because I never read them.

[clambake]

state of denial was a decent read.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So are we taking Woodward's comments to be credible now that it isn't a threat. Because he does state that the WH is bullying the press and Obama lied... Further that he is for the press being aggressive towards the president, which he believes they aren't.

If Woodward did not understand that the point of the sequestration was to force both sides to negotiate something else at least from the rhetoric coming out of that last 'crisis' then I don't know wtf.

That is the only 'lie' I get from the email. What are you talking about?

[spursncowboys]

If Woodward did not understand that the point of the sequestration was to force both sides to negotiate something else at least from the rhetoric coming out of that last 'crisis' then I don't know wtf.

That is the only 'lie' I get from the email. What are you talking about?
What this all came from:
In Woodwards book, he states that Jack Lew went to Harry Reid with the sequestration idea in july 2011.

Reid and Boehner both agreed and claimed victory


Oct 2012 The sequester is a bad idea. Both parties start to try and distance themselves and Obama states in the debate that it wasn't something he proposed but Congress proposed.

Feb 2012 On Fox Sunday Woodward states that the sequester was the WH's idea.

Then in an op-ed, Woodward said BHO was moving the goal posts for stating that the sequestration was about higher taxes and spending cuts. In his book, he states that it was only about cuts.

That was what this phone call and email to Woodward was about...

[ChumpDumper]

I wasn't stating Woodward was a Clinton insider. I think all his books were based on research. He didn't research any of his books with a final political point he was aiming at. It had very good reviews. However it wasn't as Bush bashing as his next three, so I could see where you might not of liked it.Who says I didn't like it?

At least I read it. You had to have someone tell you it was favorable. You probably fact checked my claim.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know the tone of most of those books because I never read them.They're all quite good as long as you keep in mind Woodward's rather myopic focus on inside baseball.

[spursncowboys]

Who says I didn't like it?

At least I read it. You had to have someone tell you it was favorable. You probably fact checked my claim.

Yeah I did check and no I had not read that one. I've read a few of his books and liked them both. I did, however notice a. he hates rumsfeld and b. used mostly facts. So there was one where on the Chris Mathews show he hailed it as a statement of bush's failure. I read that book and came away that it wasn't as anti bush as they were making it out to be. I think it was state of denial.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah I did check and no I had not read that one. I've read a few of his books and liked them both. I did, however notice a. he hates rumsfeld and b. used mostly facts. So there was one where on the Chris Mathews show he hailed it as a statement of bush's failure. I read that book and came away that it wasn't as anti bush as they were making it out to be. I think it was state of denial.Well I think the contrast between Bush at War and State of Denial is so glaring that one could come to that conclusion, but that's really a reflection of the administration itself and how badly they handled Iraq compared to the more immediate aftermath of 9/11.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What this all came from:
In Woodwards book, he states that Jack Lew went to Harry Reid with the sequestration idea in july 2011.

Reid and Boehner both agreed and claimed victory


Oct 2012 The sequester is a bad idea. Both parties start to try and distance themselves and Obama states in the debate that it wasn't something he proposed but Congress proposed.

Feb 2012 On Fox Sunday Woodward states that the sequester was the WH's idea.

Then in an op-ed, Woodward said BHO was moving the goal posts for stating that the sequestration was about higher taxes and spending cuts. In his book, he states that it was only about cuts.

That was what this phone call and email to Woodward was about...

It comes from the email.

When the sequestration was put out last year, the rhetoric was all about getting a new deal. The entire point was about forcing a negotiation that would include both. If the discussion is about what actually is in the sequestration then sure but I don't see the point of disputing that in the first place. Its not exactly a contentious issue.

I don't care whose idea it was as much as I do that noth parties voted for the idea overwhelmingly.

[spursncowboys]

It comes from the email.

When the sequestration was put out last year, the rhetoric was all about getting a new deal. The entire point was about forcing a negotiation that would include both. If the discussion is about what actually is in the sequestration then sure but I don't see the point of disputing that in the first place. Its not exactly a contentious issue.

I don't care whose idea it was as much as I do that noth parties voted for the idea overwhelmingly.
Well put. Still, Obama is trying to blame this on the Repubs with the notion that it was their idea. It turns out now either he was lieing or his inner cabinet are going rogue on him.

[spursncowboys]

Well I think the contrast between Bush at War and State of Denial is so glaring that one could come to that conclusion, but that's really a reflection of the administration itself and how badly they handled Iraq compared to the more immediate aftermath of 9/11.
Well sure anyone could monday morning quarterback but Bush did leave Obama with a pretty good start towards a stable country.

[spursncowboys]

I don't know the tone of most of those books because I never read them.
He focuses on the inner meetings and inner circle dialogue. That's why I liked them.

[ChumpDumper]

Well sure anyone could monday morning quarterback but Bush did leave Obama with a pretty good start towards a stable country.Actually there are many military and civilian leaders who told Bush Iraq would be an epic clusterfuck. Shit, Cheney knew it would be before his hardcore neocon conversion.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Honestly why care. Half the GOP is saying that it's Obama's fault. The other half is saying that it's a good thing.

What the GOP should be looking at is that the majority of Americans blame them for the gridlock. Both the WP-AP and ABC polls are coming out uniform on that. This blame game does nothing to change that.

It's quite the fall. It took tremendous GOP leadership control to walk the line to strangle the super majority in 2009. Now the GOP has splintered and none of them have a clue what to do. I still hold out hop we get a third party out of this.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

neverrmind

[spursncowboys]

Actually there are many military and civilian leaders who told Bush Iraq would be an epic clusterfuck. Shit, Cheney knew it would be before his hardcore neocon conversion.
Are you talking about the decision to invade Iraq or the actual policy of invading and afterwards?

Sure there were alot of people who thought it was going to be a quagmire. Small footprint; dismantling the army; etc. But the outcome was as good as anyone could of expected while creating a country not ran by a psychotic mass murdering dictator.

[ChumpDumper]

Are you talking about the decision to invade Iraq or the actual policy of invading and afterwards?

Sure there were alot of people who thought it was going to be a quagmire. Small footprint; dismantling the army; etc. But the outcome was as good as anyone could of expected while creating a country not ran by a psychotic mass murdering dictator.No, it could have been much better much sooner.

[spursncowboys]

Honestly why care. Half the GOP is saying that it's Obama's fault. The other half is saying that it's a good thing.

What the GOP should be looking at is that the majority of Americans blame them for the gridlock. Both the WP-AP and ABC polls are coming out uniform on that. This blame game does nothing to change that.

It's quite the fall. It took tremendous GOP leadership control to walk the line to strangle the super majority in 2009. Now the GOP has splintered and none of them have a clue what to do. I still hold out hop we get a third party out of this.

Doubt it. I think, like the popular party normally does, the Liberal wing of the Dems are going to overplay their capital. Obama's at 50 percent popularity and probably will start getting lower. In about two months- I bet it'll around 39-42%. Just my opinion.

Historically, the blame goes to the President for this kind of stuff. I don't see it being different this time around.

[ChumpDumper]

Doubt it. I think, like the popular party normally does, the Liberal wing of the Dems are going to overplay their capital. Obama's at 50 percent popularity and probably will start getting lower. In about two months- I bet it'll around 39-42%. Just my opinion.

Historically, the blame goes to the President for this kind of stuff. I don't see it being different this time around.The last time this happened, the blame rested squarely on the shoulders of a historian -- not the president.

[PublicOption]

taken from comment section on CNN

Wake up America! This is your new normal, and YOU ARE TO BLAME! You constantly bicker and fight amongst yourselves while the people inside the beltway steal everything that isn't tied down. You argue and complain about every manufactured crises the politicians come up with then wonder why nothing changes. Why? Because they are happy pocketing their 100+ thousand dollar a year salary for life to go with all of the free travel, free food, 188 day work YEAR, exceptional FREE healthcare program, and all the other elite benefits that come with political office. YOU ARE BEING FLEECED, and the sad thing is YOU ARE THE ONES WHO CONTINUALLY ELECT AND RE-ELECT PEOPLE YOU WOULDN'T LET WATCH YOUR CHILDREN. Wake up! Stop worrying about winning, and start asking what you can do to help our nation! This is the last chance our nation has. Abraham Lincoln said "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Stop being red and blue. Start being just an American.

[Th'Pusher]

taken from comment section on CNN

Wake up America! This is your new normal, and YOU ARE TO BLAME! You constantly bicker and fight amongst yourselves while the people inside the beltway steal everything that isn't tied down. You argue and complain about every manufactured crises the politicians come up with then wonder why nothing changes. Why? Because they are happy pocketing their 100+ thousand dollar a year salary for life to go with all of the free travel, free food, 188 day work YEAR, exceptional FREE healthcare program, and all the other elite benefits that come with political office. YOU ARE BEING FLEECED, and the sad thing is YOU ARE THE ONES WHO CONTINUALLY ELECT AND RE-ELECT PEOPLE YOU WOULDN'T LET WATCH YOUR CHILDREN. Wake up! Stop worrying about winning, and start asking what you can do to help our nation! This is the last chance our nation has. Abraham Lincoln said "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Stop being red and blue. Start being just an American.

Whoever wrote that really fancies him or herself some type of Braveaheart. I also think they're wrong. Politicians are not happy in their Cush jobs "stealing" their salaries. They've just become wildy polarized and ideological. The art of political deal making has become obsolete.

[spursncowboys]

No, it could have been much better much sooner.
How? I don't mean after the fact. I mean at the time. Who's strategy do you think would have worked better? COIN wasn't even developed yet. I also don't think it would have worked. The Surge wasn't just us having more soldiers to maintain the areas we had taken in Baghdad. For years the Baath party was trying to distant themselves from AQIZ. Bush and the Generals have given the demand that they publicly denounce AQIZ. It wasn't until a month prior to the Surge that they agreed and denounced Al Queda, which lead to us supporting the militias (which were the 1929 Rev Brigade[majority of Baath party and Sunni ex Iraq Army])

[Th'Pusher]

Shock and Awe was wildy successful. :downspin:

[spursncowboys]

Shock and Awe was wildy successful. :downspin:

?

How wasn't it?

[ChumpDumper]

How? I don't mean after the fact. I mean at the time. Who's strategy do you think would have worked better? COIN wasn't even developed yet. I also don't think it would have worked. The Surge wasn't just us having more soldiers to maintain the areas we had taken in Baghdad. For years the Baath party was trying to distant themselves from AQIZ. Bush and the Generals have given the demand that they publicly denounce AQIZ. It wasn't until a month prior to the Surge that they agreed and denounced Al Queda, which lead to us supporting the militias (which were the 1929 Rev Brigade[majority of Baath party and Sunni ex Iraq Army])The original plan with many more boots on the ground, much more limited army disbandment and de-Baathification for starters.

[spursncowboys]

The original plan with many more boots on the ground, much more limited army disbandment and de-Baathification for starters.
Had we not done the light footprint, we would not have been able to fight the insurgency. We did do de-Baathification. And I agree with you on not disbanding the whole Army.

[Th'Pusher]

?

How wasn't it?
Like. Just said, it was. After that, not so much.

[spursncowboys]

Had we not done the light footprint, we would not have been able to fight the insurgency. We did do de-Baathification. And I agree with you on not disbanding the whole Army.

The disbanding the Army thing is complete monday morning quarterbacking.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Doubt it. I think, like the popular party normally does, the Liberal wing of the Dems are going to overplay their capital. Obama's at 50 percent popularity and probably will start getting lower. In about two months- I bet it'll around 39-42%. Just my opinion.

Historically, the blame goes to the President for this kind of stuff. I don't see it being different this time around.

Historically, there has not been a congress this unpopular since Hoover left office. FDR certainly did not get blame for that time period as things sank farther into the shitter.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145238/congress-job-approval-rating-worst-gallup-history.aspx

13% approval rating and the reputation of congress just got worse. You also should recall the recent election where the GOP failed pretty miserable to pin anything on Obama.

Perhaps if the GOP was not run by a bunch of out of touch fools they could maneuver but they cannot even act in tandem. The McConnell, Graham, McCain triumverate goes one way and the tea party types go another. Christie is an outcast, they turned on Hagel. The list goes on.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The disbanding the Army thing is complete monday morning quarterbacking.

More like they should have read about Patton, Bradley and Ike. The military precedent is so well known as to be cliche

[ChumpDumper]

Had we not done the light footprint, we would not have been able to fight the insurgency. We did do de-Baathification. And I agree with you on not disbanding the whole Army.Had those not happened and the occupying force been large enough in the first place, there well may have been no insurgency at all.

[ChumpDumper]

The disbanding the Army thing is complete monday morning quarterbacking.No, there was a very strong debate about it at the time. A choice was made. A pretty bad one.