White House Threatens Bob Woodward
-
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.
-
Well I freely admit that I picked up that tactic from a hack, namely you, but it sure seems true here!
You've posted enough copy on this subject to make me think you're charging by the word.
And a simple Google search should be easy enough for anyone with even as much intelligence as woody.
Check out all the liberal pundits who are now sniping at Bob Woodward.
Including White House staffers.
Here is another hack ploy : trying to take attention away from the administrations dishonesty by attacking Woodward.
But, sir, I am actually surprised that you watch Sean Hannity every night.
Do you believe Woodward was the target of an angry dressing down prior to the email?
A simple yes or no will be fine.
WSS
-
-
Well I freely admit that I picked up that tactic from a hack, namely you, but it sure seems true here!
You've posted enough copy on this subject to make me think you're charging by the word.
And a simple Google search should be easy enough for anyone with even as much intelligence as woody.
Check out all the liberal pundits who are now sniping at Bob Woodward.
Including White House staffers.
Here is another hack ploy : trying to take attention away from the administrations dishonesty by attacking Woodward.
But, sir, I am actually surprised that you watch Sean Hannity every night.
Do you believe Woodward was the target of an angry dressing down prior to the email?
A simple yes or no will be fine.
WSS
Well I freely admit that I picked up that tactic from a hack, namely you, but it sure seems true here!
You've posted enough copy on this subject to make me think you're charging by the word.
And a simple Google search should be easy enough for anyone with even as much intelligence as woody.
Check out all the liberal pundits who are now sniping at Bob Woodward.
Including White House staffers.
Here is another hack ploy : trying to take attention away from the administrations dishonesty by attacking Woodward.
But, sir, I am actually surprised that you watch Sean Hannity every night.
Do you believe Woodward was the target of an angry dressing down prior to the email?
A simple yes or no will be fine.
WSS
LOL!
ZING! you cant add to this perfect take on the deal!
-
Heck gets buttkicking ZING by Steve again ! Yay ! "haha" !
(btw, I started a thread on this, but heckbunker had to start another one. go figure....
-
Well I freely admit that I picked up that tactic from a hack, namely you, but it sure seems true here!
You've posted enough copy on this subject to make me think you're charging by the word.
And a simple Google search should be easy enough for anyone with even as much intelligence as woody.
Check out all the liberal pundits who are now sniping at Bob Woodward.
Including White House staffers.
Here is another hack ploy : trying to take attention away from the administrations dishonesty by attacking Woodward.
But, sir, I am actually surprised that you watch Sean Hannity every night.
Do you believe Woodward was the target of an angry dressing down prior to the email?
A simple yes or no will be fine.
WSS
Well I freely admit that I picked up that tactic from a hack, namely you, but it sure seems true here!
You've posted enough copy on this subject to make me think you're charging by the word.
And a simple Google search should be easy enough for anyone with even as much intelligence as woody.
Check out all the liberal pundits who are now sniping at Bob Woodward.
Including White House staffers.
Here is another hack ploy : trying to take attention away from the administrations dishonesty by attacking Woodward.
But, sir, I am actually surprised that you watch Sean Hannity every night.
Do you believe Woodward was the target of an angry dressing down prior to the email?
A simple yes or no will be fine.
WSS
Oh, God. I know you are but what am I? Again?? Really?
Don't watch Hannity every night either. That clip was everywhere. And you don't need to watch him very long to see how often he pulls that trick. "You seem so upset? Why are you upset? When I'm just sitting here with my shit-eating grin." This is also something you do routinely. I can't tell you how many times I've written, "No, Steve, I'm not angry. I'm just fine, thanks." And your response? YOU pull that trick all the time! I learned it from watching you! Haha. You're something else.
As for all of that copy I'm posting, so I must be crazy, I don't think the facts back you up there either, do they? It's not a very long thread, and it's got a couple cut and pastes in it.
And then you refused to answer my yes or no by ...asking a yes or no.
Which I'm happy to answer. Yes, it seems Sperling and Woodward got in an argument. So what? That's not the issue. That's you changing the subject. (Again.) Politicians and their staffs get in disagreements with the press all the time. It's not news.
The issue is whether or not Sperling threatened Woodward, as he claimed. That's the news story. And if this is just a hack ploy to try and take away from the focus on the administration's threatening of a veteran DC journalist by ...pointing out and proving that they didn't threaten a veteran DC journalist, I guess you'll just have to admit what I said earlier: the point for you is not to establish truth or fact. The point is to hate liberals.
You are really something else. Especially when the thing you're accusing me of doing, to avoid talking about "the administration's dishonesty"... is something I said I'd be happy to talk about here.
Whoops.
And you see, Steve, I don't think they're wrong about Woodward's claim. I think Sperling is right. I think it's pretty clear that Sperling is right.
So again, I'll try one more time: Did the White House threaten Woodward? When Woodward says they told him "he'd regret this" was he being threatened? Yes or no.
I know in your world when the right-wing makes a charge, en masse, from Fox to Drudge to talk radio, including someone starting a thread in here about it, if liberal pundits point out that it's not true that's the fault of the liberal pundits somehow, but that's because you've lost your mind.
"Look at all of those liberal pundits pointing out why Woodward was wrong, and wondering why Woodward would peddle such a faslehood! What hacks??"
Sorry, bud. On this one, you're just all kinds of lost. And wrong. And there's no amount of retreating or changing the subject or high school debating tricks that can save you.
Works with the Cals of the world though. I'm just saying that should tell you something. And now I've taken up five minutes of my morning that I'll never get back.
-
Well I freely admit that I picked up that tactic from a hack, namely you, but it sure seems true here!
You've posted enough copy on this subject to make me think you're charging by the word.
And a simple Google search should be easy enough for anyone with even as much intelligence as woody.
Check out all the liberal pundits who are now sniping at Bob Woodward.
Including White House staffers.
Here is another hack ploy : trying to take attention away from the administrations dishonesty by attacking Woodward.
But, sir, I am actually surprised that you watch Sean Hannity every night.
Do you believe Woodward was the target of an angry dressing down prior to the email?
A simple yes or no will be fine.
WSS
Oh, God. I know you are but what am I? Again?? Really?
Don't watch Hannity every night either. That clip was everywhere. And you don't need to watch him very long to see how often he pulls that trick. "You seem so upset? Why are you upset? When I'm just sitting here with my shit-eating grin." This is also something you do routinely. I can't tell you how many times I've written, "No, Steve, I'm not angry. I'm just fine, thanks." And your response? YOU pull that trick all the time! I learned it from watching you! Haha. You're something else.
As for all of that copy I'm posting, so I must be crazy, I don't think the facts back you up there either, do they? It's not a very long thread, and it's got a couple cut and pastes in it.
And then you refused to answer my yes or no by ...asking a yes or no.
Which I'm happy to answer. Yes, it seems Sperling and Woodward got in an argument. So what? That's not the issue. That's you changing the subject. (Again.) Politicians and their staffs get in disagreements with the press all the time. It's not news.
The issue is whether or not Sperling threatened Woodward, as he claimed. That's the news story. And if this is just a hack ploy to try and take away from the focus on the administration's threatening of a veteran DC journalist by ...pointing out and proving that they didn't threaten a veteran DC journalist, I guess you'll just have to admit what I said earlier: the point for you is not to establish truth or fact. The point is to hate liberals.
You are really something else. Especially when the thing you're accusing me of doing, to avoid talking about "the administration's dishonesty"... is something I said I'd be happy to talk about here.
Whoops.
And you see, Steve, I don't think they're wrong about Woodward's claim. I think Sperling is right. I think it's pretty clear that Sperling is right.
So again, I'll try one more time: Did the White House threaten Woodward? When Woodward says they told him "he'd regret this" was he being threatened? Yes or no.
I know in your world when the right-wing makes a charge, en masse, from Fox to Drudge to talk radio, including someone starting a thread in here about it, if liberal pundits point out that it's not true that's the fault of the liberal pundits somehow, but that's because you've lost your mind.
"Look at all of those liberal pundits pointing out why Woodward was wrong, and wondering why Woodward would peddle such a faslehood! What hacks??"
Sorry, bud. On this one, you're just all kinds of lost. And wrong. And there's no amount of retreating or changing the subject or high school debating tricks that can save you.
Works with the Cals of the world though. I'm just saying that should tell you something. And now I've taken up five minutes of my morning that I'll never get back.
So again, I'll try one more time: Did the White House threaten Woodward? When Woodward says they told him "he'd regret this" was he being threatened? Yes or no.
In the email? No. Not at all.
In the tirade preceding the email? We don't know.
-
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.
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.
That's the post that says Hannity does it almost every night.
-
So again, I'll try one more time: Did the White House threaten Woodward? When Woodward says they told him "he'd regret this" was he being threatened? Yes or no.
In the email? No. Not at all.
In the tirade preceding the email? We don't know.
In the email? No. Not at all.
In the tirade preceding the email? We don't know.
Well, we do because Woodward isn't claiming he was threatened then. He's claiming he was threatened in the email. He pulled that quote out and repeated it in various media outlets. Of course, it turned out that quote was completely out of context and wasn't a threat at all, and now everyone can see that. Also, Woodward seems to be having a tough time getting what Sperling - and many others - are pointing out to him about the sequester, which seems pretty obvious.
This is why people are wondering what's going on with the guy. If he wasn't threatened, but took to the airwaves - even Hannity - to say that he was, what's he up to?
-
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.
That's the post that says Hannity does it almost every night.
That's the post that says Hannity does it almost every night.
I've seen Hannity do this a lot, yes. Like I said, it's a well-worn trick.
But - and I know you have a tough time believing this - I don't watch these shows often, or at all. I'm positive that I've never watched an episode of Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, Maddow, O'Donnell, Morning Joe, etc., all the way through in my entire life. But these shows are clipped and posted just about every day online, especially when these interviews get contentious, like Hannity's with Ellison. And I often prep people to appear on these shows, so I know who is who and how they work. It's part of what I do.
I think you're just upset because you got called out, and now you can't use your trick anymore.
If it helps, I'll honestly tell you what I look like on the other end of the line here. I wouldn't ever describe it as anger. I probably look more like this:
I don't know what my mood proves anyway. Your points still don't work whether I'm happy or sad, angry or glad.
Try not to make everything about me. That's what Cal does. Try and stick to the topic. Everything will work better.
-
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
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
Irony = Cal
-
So Steve, was Sperling threatening Woodward, as Woodward claimed in the quote above, and in other places?
Personally, I'm not a fan of threatening journalists. All politicians message the media, and play favorites, and give interviews to friendly organizations more than they do to ones that will be more adversarial. Or they'll give interviews to local affiliates instead of national, which are almost always softballs compared to the national press. That's what they do. That's what they've always done. They look at the media as a means to get their preferred message out, and little more. If you're challenging their message or keeping it from getting out they don't like it. They want to use you. You want to challenge them. This is the dance, and always has been.
But for me to get upset about politicians threatening journalists you have to show me how you were threatened. If it turns out you weren't threatened, and that you were being deceptive about it, then the question becomes why did you claim you were threatened when you weren't?
Bob Woodward is a great journalist. He's not the greatest ever, but he's a legend. People are very confused by his recent behavior. Many think he's clearly got it out for the president, and isn't reporting very well because of it. It's perfectly reasonable to push back on his reporting when that happens, especially since Woodward is so well respected and what he writes is often taken as completely true.
In fact, I'd alert you to a tweet from a conservative who worked in the Bush administration, saying that Woodward did this to their guys, too. I'll try and find it.
-
Here it is. That's Don Rumsfeld's former Chief of Staff.
And what's Woodward out doing today in the media? Claiming he never said he was threatened.
This is called "walking it back." He knows he's been caught.
-
Pretty ironic there, heck.
Within the last 48 hours I've heard Andrea Mitchell bellyaching that Don Regan used to threaten reporters.
Told almost an identical story, though I'd bet you believe that 1.
WSS
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