White House Threatens Bob Woodward
-
Yes, it's splashed all over the right wing news sites. Now read the actual "threat" and see if you can get excited about it, even for a second.
From Gene Sperling to Bob Woodward on Feb. 22, 2013
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
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
Yes, it's splashed all over the right wing news sites. Now read the actual "threat" and see if you can get excited about it, even for a second.
From Gene Sperling to Bob Woodward on Feb. 22, 2013
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
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
from what I heard , Woodward claimed the threat on CNN last night on the heels of his telling the WH about his opinion piece last Sunday!
this drivel reply from Sperling no body cares about!
Besides- Woodward is the Democrats guy right? the one who took care of Nixon..... but no one remembers that!
Only now he is a guy with the stones to move past the bullshit that passes for a free press and calls it like it is!!!! THX MR. WOODWARD!!
-
Uh, no. He's talking about the threat from Sperling. He's completely embarrassed himself. He played it off as a threat, then ran out to the media to get some attention, but no one could actually read it that way. I have no idea why he didn't think that email would come out.
-
the "threat" is actually a non factor ....
but telling in the Chicago thug like nature of this WH politics IMO...
But dont worry.... Woodward is a has been right?
-
WOODWARD ISN’T ALONE: FORMER CLINTON AIDE (AND OBAMA SUPPORTER) CLAIMS WHITE HOUSE THREATENED OVER HIS ARTICLES, TOO
-
Martin Luther King, Jr. > Quotes > Quotable Quote
“Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.”
-
And scene.
-
I understand there is something of a 0 tolerance policy for blasphemy against the Obama administration...
In less than 1 day the left has transformed America's godfather of investigative journalists into a doddering old hack.
WSS
-
And we're back to changing the subject.
Steve, simple question: was the man threatened by the White House? Does that email sound threatening at all to you?
Second simple question: Did Woodward go out and suggest to the public that he'd been threatened by the White House?
Seems clear to me that the answers are no, not at all, and yes. But tell me how it looks from the Republican alternate reality.
-
And imagine how laughable/frustrating it is to have someone make a claim, have that claim turn out not to be true, and then for me to point out that said person's claim wasn't true, and then get attacked for pointing out that what wasn't true wasn't true.
Way to be on the side of truth, bud.
-
And then, if you want, we can get to who is right about the sequester, Sperling or Woodward, because that one seems pretty clear to me, too.
-
Heck, seriously, it looks like you're going off the deep end over this.
Anyway a good thing about it is that if Woodward turns up missing there will probably at least be an investigation...
WSS
-
Oh and to answer your questions: how about maybe, and not particularly but it's possible you choose the order?
I'm just pointing out the fact that the left has gone insane over this.
1 of their own suggested that maybe the president hasn't been totally honest in 1 of his many talking points?
Give us Barabbas!!!!!
-
You have totally lost your mind.
A guy claims something. That something becomes a big talking point on the right. Except that it turns out it wasn't true. And now pointing out that it wasn't true is "going insane." How about figuring out which is true? Is that enough for you? Apparently not. That's not the goal. As we know, the goal is hating liberals.
Can't get in the way of that.
-
So again, was Woodward threatened by the White House in that email, as Woodward claimed. Yes or no?
And here he is claiming that he was:
Digging into one of his famous folders, Woodward said the tirade [from a White House official] was followed by a page-long email from the aide, one of the four or five administration officials most closely involved in the fiscal negotiations with the Hill. “I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today,” the official typed. “You’re focusing on a few specific trees that give a very wrong impression of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here. … I think you will regret staking out that claim.”
Woodward repeated the last sentence, making clear he saw it as a veiled threat. “ ‘You’ll regret.’ Come on,” he said. “I think if Obama himself saw the way they’re dealing with some of this, he would say, ‘Whoa, we don’t tell any reporter ‘you’re going to regret challenging us.’”
-
Try not to pull your hair out Heck
-
Steve likes to employ one the hack's old tricks, which is when you're backed up ask, "Why are you so angry?" Hannity plays it just about every night. It doesn't mean I'm angry. It means he's backed up.
This is a pretty simple one. If he could answer he'd have something to say other than accusing me of "going off the deep end" or pretending that pointing out that Woodward was wrong is somehow wild, irrational behavior, or character assassination. I just find it entertaining when they refuse to admit the obvious. It's the party in nutshell - they live in their own reality. The fact that Woodward has been publicly exposed today leaving just about everyone - including many people on the right - wondering why he put himself in this position given his career and reputation is not the issue. It's the people who are going after him who are going off the deep end! That's the story!
I've got all of my hair, don't you worry.
-
Good. I know this shit gets old
-
These two deserve each other, but go to about 40 seconds in and you'll see the old trick.
-
yawn.
Heckbunker does more quibbling over words' definitions blah blah blah.
He would take the opposite side if Bush and co. had issued an email
saying "you'll regret" or something.
THEN it would be "sets a dangerous precedent, puts America on alert of censorship of the media,
our protection from corruption in the highest levels of gov."
But no...
now, with his fave Obamao, it's "haha".
hyprocrisy = heckbunker
-
Hard to determine the tone of the "tirade" that preceded the email, but that looks like a normal friend-to-friend exchange of advice.
Maybe Woodward in his mind combined both the "tirade" and the email, but the email alone is not threatening.
At all.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login