White House Threatens Bob Woodward
-
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
-
Yeah... that is ...ironic. Somehow.
Answer the question.
-
Yeah... that is ...ironic. Somehow.
Answer the question.
Yeah... that is ...ironic. Somehow.
Answer the question.
What's the question now?
If it's this, I think the White House was trying to back Woodward off.
I think they were really pissed off that their dishonesty was unearthed.
So yes, a mild threat, a warning of sorts.
But I don't think Bob Woodward feared any retribution.
It probably would have frightened a 22 year old from the Washington Post.
Unless you had some other questions...
Were you going to answer the 1 about the upbraiding he got prior to the conciliatory email.
WSS
-
Okay, once and for all, let's define "threaten"..
...with bodily injury? death?
Loss of career?
Being made to read heckbunkers stupid rationalization posts in favor of his marxist pig ?
Any book he writes being blacklisted by all outlets obedient to Obamao and co?
Being framed for murder?
Having his internet service charge raised?
Being put on the "no fly list" ?
Being ridiculed like any Republican? Being lambasted by Obamao controlled media bashes Sarah Palin?
Ridiculed, on instruction, by Sat Night Live and Letterman, on schedule?
There is someone in the WH that is so belligerent, and hostile, he has a rep, and
certain conservative media types will not have any communication with him.
I wonder if his last name is Soros....
-
Remember,
heckbunker is the liar of the board for all time:
he said Obamao was a big defender of our 2nd Amendment.....
and was never going to "take away your guns".
But, that's why heckbunker always has a mosquitozits (mz the pussy the pussy) or
a woodenpeckerhead around.
It's so he won't be the only democrock asswipe of the board.
-
Yeah... that is ...ironic. Somehow.
Answer the question.
What's the question now?
If it's this, I think the White House was trying to back Woodward off.
I think they were really pissed off that their dishonesty was unearthed.
So yes, a mild threat, a warning of sorts.
But I don't think Bob Woodward feared any retribution.
It probably would have frightened a 22 year old from the Washington Post.
Unless you had some other questions...
Were you going to answer the 1 about the upbraiding he got prior to the conciliatory email.
WSS
What's the question now?
If it's this, I think the White House was trying to back Woodward off.
I think they were really pissed off that their dishonesty was unearthed.
So yes, a mild threat, a warning of sorts.
But I don't think Bob Woodward feared any retribution.
It probably would have frightened a 22 year old from the Washington Post.
Unless you had some other questions...
Were you going to answer the 1 about the upbraiding he got prior to the conciliatory email.
WSS
I already did. I said it was nothing out of the ordinary and happens all the time. Go back and read it.
And your answer makes me laugh. You've lost all objectivity.
It should be clear to you that they're arguing whether or not Woodward has his facts right about the nature of the sequester. That's what Sperling and Woodward are talking about. And Sperling, in my view, is clearly correct, and Woodward is strangely unable to grasp the difference between the sequester, and the discussion of what replaces the sequester. They're two different things. One has no stipulations attached to it and is a simple exercise in budget cuts that were agreed to in 2011. The discussion about what replaces the sequester is what they're doing now, and it's always been understood that the Democrats would try to replace the sequester with a mix of revenue increases and spending cuts, and the Republicans would want to do 100% spending cuts with no revenue. Woodward thinks the debate over a long term deal is confined to the stipulations outlined in sequester, and Sperling is trying to explain to him that it's not.
But this involves a bit of subtlety, so my expectation that you'll understand this is basically zero. And my expectation that you'd move off the idea that Woodward was threatened in the face of evidence that he wasn't is just more evidence of how lost and blindly partisan you've become.
-
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?
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?
Ok then. Yeah.
"No" times 2
-
Thank you.
Honestly, Steve, how many people you know threaten, even mildly, by saying "I apologize", "My bad", and "Feel bad about that and truly apologize"?
Look at the email again. He's challenging Woodward on his claim that Obama "moved the goalposts." He's saying that you should move off this because it's not true. And it isn't true. Everyone knew that when the debate about how to replace the sequester got underway the Democrats would ask for revenue and spending cuts, and the Republicans would ask for all spending cuts. So when the White House asked for more revenue that's not Obama moving the goalposts. That's Woodward confusing two things.
Sperling is saying "as a friend" you're going to regret staking out this position because you're wrong and it's going to be clear that you're wrong. Because as a reporter, it's good to have your facts right. He's not saying you're going to regret doing this because we're going to ruin you, or cut off access. After all, this whole episode came about because the Obama White House let Woodward interview everyone for his new book!
This is plainly clear to everyone who has read the email without wingnut glasses on.
"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's even more entertaining now that Woodward himself is making the rounds and saying that he never called Sperling’s e-mail “a threat.”
So when you read the email, it's clearly not a threat. Woodward, the recipient of the email, didn't think it was a threat. But you still think it was??
Steve, I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying that it was a threat. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim.
-
But you don't listen to me, so try it from ...oh, every reporter in Washington, including Fox News' Brett Baier:
Bob Woodward has suggested that the White House threatened him. Many of his colleagues in the press corps aren't buying it.
By the standards of this White House, a statement like the one senior White House official Gene Sperling wrote to Woodward last week -- "I think you will regret staking out that claim" -- is both mild and familiar, reporters who have dealt with the Obama administration say.
"It's not a big deal. You've been yelled at by people in the White House, I've been yelled at by people in the White House -- I'm sure this has happened to a thousand people in Washington," Atlantic columnist Jeffrey Goldberg, who deals with the White House frequently, told POLITICO. "The whole thing seems like a tempest in a teapot."
"I get emails like this almost every hour, whether it's from the White House or Capitol Hill," said Chuck Todd, the NBC News political director and senior White House correspondent. "For better or worse, flacks get paid to push back."
Since POLITICO published the full email exchange between Woodward and Sperling, journalists from across the political spectrum have voiced skepticism over Woodward's decision to paint himself as the victim of White House pressure.
"If this is it, I think many reporters — and I covered the White House for four years — received emails like this," Fox News host Bret Baier said on Andrea Tantaros's radio show today. "It was a cordial exchange for the most part, and Sperling is actually apologizing for a heated telephone conversation they had earlier in the day."
“I’m not saying the White House doesn’t pressure reporters all the time and put the heat on reporters covering the White House. I’ve heard many, many stories that they do," Baier continued. "But this particular incident and this particular email, I’m not sure that characterizing it as a threat -- I think Bob Woodward has a little bit of explaining to do about that characterization.”
Harold Maass, the online executive editor of The Week, likewise noted on Twitter that "the email that scared [Woodward] was sort of cordial." Outside the Beltway, Business Insider CEO Henry Blodget even wrote a post titled, "Oh, Please, The White House Didn't 'Threaten' Bob Woodward."
-
It isn't the first time a veiled warning has been made. Sounds like dissing hitler in front of the nazi soldiers.
The people around obamao HATE criticism.
Truth is, I'll bet Woodward knew about this other incident. And being a reporter, and
your boss being intimidated to revoke your credentials is pretty much a threat to your career.
Truth hurts heckbunker.
*********************************
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,
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."
Davis said he "couldn't imagine why this call was made" since he's an Obama supporter.
But he called the alleged threat "unfortunate."
The account comes after Woodward claimed Wednesday night that a White House aide sent him an email saying he would "regret" his recent reporting on the sequester battle. The aide was not identified, but an official familiar with the exchange told Fox News it was National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling -- the tone of the email was rather mixed, as it also included an apology. That was after Woodward wrote a column this past weekend claiming Obama was trying to re-write history -- regarding not only whose idea the sequester was, but also how it would take effect.
Woodward wrote that based on his reporting earlier in the budget battle, the president was trying to move the goalposts by trying to replace the sequester with a mix of tax hikes and spending cuts -- instead of solely spending cuts.
After Politico reported late Wednesday that Woodward was coming forward to claim he was threatened, a White House aide denied the claim.
"Of course no threat was intended," wrote the White House aide. "As Mr. Woodward noted, the email from the aide 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 Press Secretary Jay Carney said Thursday that Woodward and Obama's advisers merely "had a factual disagreement that I think we stand by."
He stressed that it's clear nobody was threatening anybody, and that the tone was "respectful."
According to Politico, Woodward said he was "yelled at" by an Obama aide over his weekend column in the Post. Then, he said he received a page-long email from the aide -- apparently Sperling -- that said: "I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. ... 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."
Animosity between Woodward and the Obama team is rising, as the journalist has repeatedly needled the administration on its sequester talking points. His reporting bolstered claims that the sequester idea originated at the White House. And this week, he called the administration's handling of the cuts "madness."
Former Obama adviser David Plouffe tweeted Wednesday: "Watching Woodward last 2 days is like imagining my idol Mike Schmidt facing live pitching again. Perfection gained once is rarely repeated."
Fox News' Ed Henry contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/28/white-house-denies-staffer-threatened-watergate-journalist-woodward/#ixzz2MKz1eunv
-
http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0083190/quotes
The transcript.
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