Top Administration Official Threatened Woodward

[gatorman_07732]

Of course the administration denies it, but Woodward has the email to prove it. It is pretty clear that the arrogance of this administration has got worse since re-election.

Bob Woodward says he was threatened by White House

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.

[wgbgator]

See if you can spot the threat:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/exclusive-the-woodward-sperling-emails-revealed-88226.html?hp=t1_3


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.

[T3goalie]

Government intimidation?

Nah... Matthews, et al,will tell us it is just an misunderstanding. Time for a beer with the Prez in the rose garden

[wgbgator]

Government intimidation?

Nah... Matthews, et al,will tell us it is just an misunderstanding. Time for a beer with the Prez in the rose garden

Where's the intimidation? :huh:

[BobK89]

"you will regret" is being interpreted as a possible threat.

Whether it is or not, let the debate begin.

[gatorman_07732]

Where's the intimidation? :huh:

Your blind, bob just pointed it out. When someone says you will regret it, that is a threat. Woodward himself said he perceived it as a threat and he is hardly the partisan like you.

[Row6]

Your blind, bob just pointed it out. When someone says you will regret it, that is a threat. Woodward himself said he perceived it as a threat and he is hardly the partisan like you.

Poor Bobby. Obviously he's more used to being a willing mouth piece for whatever inside source dictates his books to him. Guess Obama snubbed him somewhere along the line.

[g8trjax]

Woodward should step back in line. It hasn't been established if O can legally drone citizens on American soil.

[gatorman_07732]

Poor Bobby. Obviously he's more used to being a willing mouth piece for whatever inside source dictates his books to him. Guess Obama snubbed him somewhere along the line.

Looks like you condone threats. There is nothing this administration could do that you would condemn.

[Row6]

Looks like you condone threats. There is nothing this administration could do that you would condemn.

I absolutely condone the language of the email that gave Bobby the vapors.

[mocgator]

If this had been Bush there would have been rallies of leftists Myrmidons screaming about the assault on the first amendment. Th main stream press would be frothing.

Our tyrant in chief and his junta simply cannot be questioned. Really starting to look like Germany in the 1930's. you must support the party or you will be punished. What sad times are these.

[gatorman_07732]

I absolutely condone the language of the email that gave Bobby the vapors.

Well then you condone making threats. Very nice

[gatorman_07732]

If this had been Bush there would have been rallies of leftists Myrmidons screaming about the assault on the first amendment. Th main stream press would be frothing.

Our tyrant in chief and his junta simply cannot be questioned. Really starting to look like Germany in the 1930's. you must support the party or you will be punished. What sad times are these.

They would already be planning hearings in the House

[Row6]

If this had been Bush there would have been rallies of leftists Myrmidons screaming about the assault on the first amendment. Th main stream press would be frothing.

Our tyrant in chief and his junta simply cannot be questioned. Really starting to look like Germany in the 1930's. you must support the party or you will be punished. What sad times are these.

Bush? Like you said in another post, this is worse than Germany in the 1930's. This is Himmler in the Ukraine, Tojo in China!

[wgbgator]

Your blind, bob just pointed it out. When someone says you will regret it, that is a threat. Woodward himself said he perceived it as a threat and he is hardly the partisan like you.

Here's how Bob responded to this "threat:"

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

[gator421]

If this had been Bush there would have been rallies of leftists Myrmidons screaming about the assault on the first amendment. Th main stream press would be frothing.

Our tyrant in chief and his junta simply cannot be questioned. Really starting to look like Germany in the 1930's. you must support the party or you will be punished. What sad times are these.

Bush?

[gatorman_07732]

Here's how Bob responded to this "threat:"

Did you even listen to Woodward? I don't think you did, because the words came right out of his mouth that this made him uncomfortable. You guys are amazing. There is nothing this administration could do that you would condemn....Nothing

[wgbgator]

Did you even listen to Woodward? I don't think you did, because the words came right out of his mouth that this made him uncomfortable. You guys are amazing. There is nothing this administration could do that you would condemn....Nothing

Well, Bob is entitled to his feelings. But having seen the actual e-mail and reply, its hard to see any threats or intimidation there, or discomfort on Bob's end in his reply. I doubt any reasonable person would. He seems to have thinner skin than your average Too Hot poster if he actually felt "threatened."

[Row6]

Well then you condone making threats. Very nice

If you don't stop posting nonsense I won't read it anymore.


Understand!!

[gatorman_07732]

Well, Bob is entitled to his feelings. But having seen the actual e-mail and reply, its hard to see any threats or intimidation there, or discomfort on Bob's end in his reply. I doubt any reasonable person would. He seems to have thinner skin than your average Too Hot poster if he actually felt "threatened."

This conversation is worthless, you see things one way and are beyond reason. When someone says your going to regret this based on something you wrote, that is an indication of retaliation in some way. You can deny it, but cleary you would not be reasonable for doing so.

[Row6]

Here's how Bob responded to this "threat:"

Yeah, sure, but he was no doubt hiding out in a motel in Northern Va., drenched in sweat and afraid to go home at that point. These brutes must be stopped!

[108]

Here's how Bob responded to this "threat:"

well that just blew up that claim

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Remember: They’re not attacking Bob Woodward because they think he’s lying. They’re attacking him because they think he’s telling the truth.

---Glenn Reynolds

[Row6]

Remember: They’re not attacking Bob Woodward because they think he’s lying. They’re attacking him because they think he’s telling the truth.

---Glenn Reynolds

Powerful stuff. Can we buy the bumper sticker yet, or maybe the engraved set of dinnerware?

[oaklandroadie]

The real story should be how much of the press lined up against Woodward. Twitter is full of "journalists" and Obama officials (Plouffe, Cutter) calling Woodward old and taking other personal shots. But no, there is no bias, and the MSM aren't Obama lapdogs.

[wgbgator]

This conversation is worthless, you see things one way and are beyond reason. When someone says your going to regret this based on something you wrote, that is an indication of retaliation in some way. You can deny it, but cleary you would not be reasonable for doing so.

As a friend, I think you are going to regret staking out the claim in the OP. :laugh:

[T3goalie]

Blue team good. Protect king at all costs... Beyond silly and reason. Nixon is a piker compared to the Potus.

[Row6]

Blue team good. Protect king at all costs... Beyond silly and reason. Nixon is a piker compared to the Potus.

Dude, try to keep up. It's already established that this naked threat of violence if Woodward didn't "clam up, see!" - read the emails back and forth - is worse than Germany in the 1930's, maybe as bad as Warsaw in 1941, Nanking in 1933, and approaches Hiroshima. We all await Woodward's response - "Nuts!" - to rally around him, no matter where he is in hiding.

[Row6]

As a friend, I think you are going to regret staking out the claim in the OP. :laugh:

Mods!!

This kind of intimidation is an outrage. It will not stand!

[jdrgator]

Did you even listen to Woodward? I don't think you did, because the words came right out of his mouth that this made him uncomfortable. You guys are amazing. There is nothing this administration could do that you would condemn....Nothing

Jeez, dude, read the email again. There was no threat there. Just repeating Woodward's "claim" does not make it fact.

[mdgator05]

This conversation is worthless, you see things one way and are beyond reason. When someone says your going to regret this based on something you wrote, that is an indication of retaliation in some way. You can deny it, but cleary you would not be reasonable for doing so.

If you wrote that you love Neo-Nazis and I told you that you would regret saying that, would that be considered a threat?

[Swampmaster]

barack's people need to get woodward and the post back on message.

[gatorman_07732]

Jeez, dude, read the email again. There was no threat there. Just repeating Woodward's "claim" does not make it fact.

Woodward sure perceived that way because he said so. This is typical Chicago thuggery. I understand what you guys don't want to see. This is clear and it is a threat.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

If the email is the extent of it, I wouldn't interpret it as a threat.

But there was clearly other things happening before the email (as it indicates). I don't think anyone's in position to judge the "threatiness" of the email on its own.

[PSGator66]

I find it funny that the liberals feel that we need their translations on everything as if we don't speak the same language. Message for libs: You may be able to outsmart your own flock with wonderfully spun tails but but your wasting your time trying to BS the rest of us.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

I mean it's simple. If Woodward feels threatened, it was a threat, even if it wasn't necessarily intended that way.

[gatorman_07732]

If the email is the extent of it, I wouldn't interpret it as a threat.

But there was clearly other things happening before the email (as it indicates). I don't think anyone's in position to judge the "threatiness" of the email on its own.

Perhaps you don't, however you're not the recipient

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Um, that's what I just said.

[Row6]

and gatorman's been threatened right here on TH, at least twice today. With what is the proper question, for both he and Woodward.

[wgbgator]

I mean it's simple. If Woodward feels threatened, it was a threat, even if it wasn't necessarily intended that way.

Fortunately, there's some willing media outlets for Bob to have his feelings validated.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

As Row and his like have demonstrated in this thread, behaving in civil and decorous manner is for the little people.

Jack booted thuggery is the order of the day for this administration and it sycophants. There is no administrative behavior too vile that the sycophants will not defend.

[wgbgator]

As Row and his like have demonstrated in this thread, behaving in civil and decorous manner is for the little people.

Jack booted thuggery is the order of the day for this administration and it sycophants. There is no administrative behavior too vile that the sycophants will not defend.

I'm sure we can all be glad though that today's "jack-booted thuggery" invloves profuse apology via e-mail and "threats" so couched that they can't be noticed by those not needing to validate a feeling they already have, and not actual thugs with jackboots.

[gatorman_07732]

Fortunately, there's some willing media outlets for Bob to have his feelings validated.

Clearly this administration is above threatening anyone :laugh:

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Lanny Davis: The White House Threatened To Deny Me Credentials If I Kept Writing About Them


Ron Fourier: I Got the Same "You Will Regret This"

-----Ace of Spades

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

A day after Woodward's claim that a senior White House official had told him he would "regret" writing a column criticizing President Obama's stance on the sequester, Lanny Davis, a longtime close advisor to President Bill Clinton, told WMAL's Mornings on the Mall Thursday he had received similar threats for newspaper columns he had written about Obama in the Washington Times.

Davis told WMAL that his editor, John Solomon, "received a phone call from a senior Obama White House official who didn't like some of my columns, even though I'm a supporter of Obama. I couldn't imagine why this call was made." Davis says the Obama aide told Solomon, "that if he continued to run my columns, he would lose, or his reporters would lose their White House credentials."

Thus demonstrating that this Administration feels that the First Amendment is important, except when it is not.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Now National Journal reporter Ron Fourier -- whom I believe to be a liberal in good standing with his paperwork in order -- drops this tidbit:

As editor-in-chief of National Journal, I received several e-mails and telephone calls from this White House official filled with vulgarity, abusive language, and virtually the same phrase that Woodward called a veiled threat. “You will regret staking out that claim,” The Washington Post reporter was told.

Once I moved back to daily reporting this year, the badgering intensified. I wrote Saturday night, asking the official to stop e-mailing me. The official wrote, challenging Woodward and my tweet. “Get off your high horse and assess the facts, Ron,” the official wrote.

I wrote back:

“I asked you to stop e-mailing me. All future e-mails from you will be on the record -- publishable at my discretion and directly attributed to you. My cell-phone number is … . If you should decide you have anything constructive to share, you can try to reach me by phone. All of our conversations will also be on the record, publishable at my discretion and directly attributed to you.” I haven’t heard back from the official. It was a step not taken lightly because the note essentially ended our working relationship.

More

[gatorman_07732]

and gatorman's been threatened right here on TH, at least twice today. With what is the proper question, for both he and Woodward.

:crazy: oooooooooooook

[PSGator66]

Woodward was the only one threatened and I guess this is one step closer to having liberal censorship over all media as the nation slowly falls into oblivion.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/28/woodward-isnt-alone-former-clinton-adviser-and-obama-supporter-claims-white-house-threatened-over-his-articles-too/

[madgator]

scarey how the Obama supporters are so quick in their impulse to immediately attack Bob Woodward rather than question those in power.


why think? why analyze? why not deliberate? just attack anyone who doesn't toe the line.


very troubling

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

BTW, Sperling's apology and subsequent verbosity suggest that he knows he crossed a line.

[rivergator]

Apparently conservatives are now realizing there wasn't a threat:

Matt Lewis - Bob Woodward trolled us (and we got played)

Erick Erickson - Ok wow. Finally read the email to Woodward. I must now move to the "not a threat" camp.

Brit Hume - On one hand, only Woodward can say if he felt threatened by WH email. On the other, hard to imagine feeling threatened by Gene Sperling.

link (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/conservatives-regret-taking-woodwards-threat-story-seriously)

[gatorman_07732]

Apparently conservatives are now realizing there wasn't a threat:

Matt Lewis - Bob Woodward trolled us (and we got played)

Erick Erickson - Ok wow. Finally read the email to Woodward. I must now move to the "not a threat" camp.

Brit Hume - On one hand, only Woodward can say if he felt threatened by WH email. On the other, hard to imagine feeling threatened by Gene Sperling.

link (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/conservatives-regret-taking-woodwards-threat-story-seriously)

I'm shocked that you would try to deny there was a threat :crazy:

[rivergator]

I'm shocked that you would try to deny there was a threat :crazy:

Actually, you've got some serious blast-Obama-for-anything conservatives who are saying there was no threat. They admit they were played.
Your turn.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Good, smart commentary;

Tipping Point

Last week, Politico’s feature on the ability of the Obama White House to manipulate the coverage they received generated a heated discussion about whether the supine attitude of mainstream journalists toward the president was the result of clever tactics and not, as they claimed, liberal bias. I agreed that the administration had broken new ground in employing smart ways to bypass and frustrate the working press, but pointed out the obvious fact that these strategies wouldn’t work half so well if the vast majority of the publications and networks that employ the journalists weren’t happy to roll over for Obama. No president has received the sort of adulation and fawning coverage from the mainstream since the halcyon days of John F. Kennedy’s Camelot White House.

While the Woodward rebellion hasn’t really altered that reality, it is a sign that his expectation that he will be treated with kid gloves for four more years may not be fulfilled. That the administration is pushing back so hard on Woodward betrays their worry that if the Watergate icon can get away with saying the emperor has no clothes, lesser mortals will soon be tempted to do it too.

As important as the sequester may be, this spat is about more than just that issue. The White House has assumed all along that its narrative about the budget cuts and the need for more taxes–even after the recent hikes enacted to avert the fiscal cliff as well as the raise in payroll deductions–would never be contradicted by what has been their active cheering section in the press corps.

As Max pointed out, there are good reasons to fear the effect of the sequester. But the idea that the president can bulldoze his way through Republican opposition to his big government agenda armed with the notion that the public and the media will unite behind him has been shaken. Today, even the still loyal New York Times admitted the public might not be panicked into pressuring the Republicans into submission. If the White House is today waging an unexpected war on Bob Woodward, it is because they fear the beginning of the end of their four-year honeymoon with the media.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/02/28/war-on-woodward-may-be-a-tipping-point/#more-819544

[g8rjd]

Did you even listen to Woodward? I don't think you did, because the words came right out of his mouth that this made him uncomfortable. You guys are amazing. There is nothing this administration could do that you would condemn....Nothing

Gatorman,

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. This is hardly an "offer he can't refuse." From the email, the context of something he would "regret" doesn't appear to me to be a threat of government retribution, but merely that his assertions could prove to be wrong, affecting Woodward's credibility. From Woodward's response, it appears that is how he took the official's statement as well.

Certainly, whenever I hear an administration official say something to a reporter about "regret[ting]" proceeding on a story, I would be deeply concerned about it being an inappropriate government intimidation of the press. However, looking at the context here, I don't think that's the case. In context, it appears the administration official is trying to persuade Woodward by appealing to Woodward's interest in maintaining his crediblity, not to exercise retribution. And, from Woodward's response, it appears that Woodward, at least initially, understood it that way.

JMHO.

[G8trGr8t]

Woodward was the only one threatened and I guess this is one step closer to having liberal censorship over all media as the nation slowly falls into oblivion.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/28/woodward-isnt-alone-former-clinton-adviser-and-obama-supporter-claims-white-house-threatened-over-his-articles-too/

nothing to see hear, move along....you have to wonder how many junior reporters this administration has threatened and intimidated.

this was all foreseeable too as his history of denying credentials to those that disagree with him goes all the way back to the first potus race he was in. control the messenger, control the message. I bet he would love state run media

[corpgator]

So let's see, Woodward is ranting about Obama moving the goal posts, when the entire point of sequestration was to force a "moving of the goal posts" from the beginning. Both sides are trying to come up with something so sequestration doesn't happen. They are both moving them.

Then someone tells him he's wrong and that if he keeps spouting this nonsense, he's going to regret it. Wow, big threat there.

[gatorman_07732]

Actually, you've got some serious blast-Obama-for-anything conservatives who are saying there was no threat. They admit they were played.
Your turn.

Most rational people would see this as a threat

BOB WOODWARD: A 'Very Senior' White House Person Warned Me I'd 'Regret' What I'm Doing

[corpgator]

If I'm talking to a co-worker and tell him I'm about to go tell off my boss for something, and he tells me that I'm going to regret it, is he threatening me or giving me good advice?

[mastoidbone]

Nothing wrong with that email exchange.

What is wrong is Obama lying about the SEQ being HID idea---and bob having to show the nation yet again that Obama lies about.....everything.

[Row6]

As Row and his like have demonstrated in this thread, behaving in civil and decorous manner is for the little people.

Jack booted thuggery is the order of the day for this administration and it sycophants. There is no administrative behavior too vile that the sycophants will not defend.

That's "Row and ilk" (not like) to be more accurate.

Are these jack boots you mentioned?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR-wGieSZk0Po1M6Weta6WSuIlZ1gOwiICot4bHnTzJsXcQuacx

[rivergator]

Most rational people would see this as a threat

So why have people like Erickson said that after reading the email, he realized there was no threat?

[G8trGr8t]

"I've tangled with lots of these people," said the journalist, who established his reputation by breaking the story of the Watergate break-in under President Richard Nixon and has written a series of best selling books about Washington politics.

"But suppose there's a young reporter who's only had a couple of years — or 10 years' — experience and the White House is sending him an email saying, ‘You're going to regret this,'" Woodward said. "You know, tremble, tremble. I don't think it's the way to operate."


it is obvious that this administration does anything and everything they can to control the messenger so that they can control the message. Read Woodward's quote above and think about how many younger journalists cover the WH and tell me he didn't interpret the message as a threat.

[gatorman_07732]

So why have people like Erickson said that after reading the email, he realized there was no threat?

Look lets stop the B.S. here and actually look at really what happened. There is essentially two things that happened here, which Woodward called out Obama on two things (I assume I don't need to rehash these). This email was in response to something the administration didn't like, and you know damn well they are not happy. The email in turn said you are going to regret doing this. That can certainly be perceived as a threat from the recipient after the sequence of events that have unfolded.

[Row6]

it is obvious that this administration does anything and everything they can to control the messenger so that they can control the message. Read Woodward's quote above and think about how many younger journalists cover the WH and tell me he didn't interpret the message as a threat.

Yes, and we all know that trying to control the message is not only unique in the history of the White House, where it has never been done before, except by every White House since Coolidge (and who knows about him) and is positively never done by the parties in Congress. This outrage must not stand!

[Row6]

Conservatives "regret taking Woodward seriously". From The Daily Caller:

"Twitter exploded last night, after Bob Woodward revealed that White House official had warned him he would “regret” saying Obama had moved the goal posts on sequestration.

Predictably, conservatives latched onto this, as it confirmed our suspicion about the Obama Administration’s “Chicago-style” of politics. A lot of mainstream journalists bought into this, too — reflexively believing anything the great Bob Woodward says.

Of course, Woodward (who was expert at trolling for publicity before the internet even existed), benefits greatly from the publicity (nothing sells books like controversy).

Make no mistake. This was no accident. As Politico reported last night,

“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.’”

But today, things look different. P0litico has posted the exclusive email from Gene Sperling to Woodward. It begins, “I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today.”

(Frightening, I know!)

Sperling’s email eventually does say, “I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim.” But this is clearly not a veiled threat of retaliation, but rather a warning that the reporter was about to get the story wrong.

When Woodward tells of being warned he would “regret” challenging Obama, it sounds ominous. But if Politico’s reporting today is correct, it seems much more innocuous than that.

Looks like we were played."

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/28/bob-woodward-trolled-us-and-we-got-played/#ixzz2MDXZEkvY

[rivergator]

Look lets stop the B.S. here and actually look at really what happened. There is essentially two things that happened here, which Woodward called out Obama on two things (I assume I don't need to rehash these). This email was in response to something the administration didn't like, and you know damn well they are not happy. The email in turn said you are going to regret doing this. That can certainly be perceived as a threat from the recipient after the sequence of events that have unfolded.

Yes, Woodward certainly said it was a threat. And, as has already been explained to you, it can also perceived as telling Woodward that he won't like it when he realizes he's wrong.
So let me ask again: Why are conservatives who are so willing to blast Obama for everything saying it's clear that there was no threat?

[gatorman_07732]

Yes, Woodward certainly said it was a threat. And, as has already been explained to you, it can also perceived as telling Woodward that he won't like it when he realizes he's wrong.
So let me ask again: Why are conservatives who are so willing to blast Obama for everything saying it's clear that there was no threat?

Why are you asking me to answer for what someone else thinks? I'm talking about how Woodward perceived it.

[rivergator]

Why are you asking me to answer for what someone else thinks? I'm talking about how Woodward perceived it.

catch the contradiction in that?

[FlyingGatorII]

Well, Bob is entitled to his feelings. But having seen the actual e-mail and reply, its hard to see any threats or intimidation there, or discomfort on Bob's end in his reply. I doubt any reasonable person would. He seems to have thinner skin than your average Too Hot poster if he actually felt "threatened."

So is Lanny then I guess.

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

Now I will sit and watch you liberals start feasting on another one of your own, a former Clinton cabinet member, to protect your Thug in Chief. Watching you all defend this guy really makes you look like the blind followers you truly are. Pathetic really..

[gatorman_07732]

catch the contradiction in that?

no, they were not the recipients which is all together different

[wgbgator]

So is Lanny then I guess.

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

Now I will sit and watch you liberals start feasting on another one of your own, a former Clinton cabinet member, to protect your Thug in Chief. Watching you all defend this guy really makes you look like the blind followers you truly are. Pathetic really..

Clearly, this is Nazi Germany redux:

"He didn't take it seriously, because he didn't think that could ever happen. He thought it was bluster," Davis told WMAL. "I called three senior people at the White House, and I said, 'I want this person to be told this can never happen again, and it's inappropriate.' I got a call back from someone who was in the White House saying it will never happen again."

I like how these things always involve "senior" people, rather than people with names or actual job descriptions.

[FlyingGatorII]

scarey how the Obama supporters are so quick in their impulse to immediately attack Bob Woodward rather than question those in power.


why think? why analyze? why not deliberate? just attack anyone who doesn't toe the line.


very troubling

Yep. Now we all know how Scientology started..

[rivergator]

More conservatives jumping ship:

Echoing Lewis, Daily Caller co-founder Tucker Carlson said during an appearance on Fox News that the full emails suggest Woodward "hyped" the claim that he had been threatened.

Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin, after posting an overwrought item this morning arguing that the Woodward story was evidence of the "monstrously stupid" White House trying to intimidate its critics, added an update explaining that "the full e-mails reveal less bullying and far more pomposity, suggesting the White House would have its critic's best interest at heart."

In a post at National Review, Kevin Hassett argues that while Sperling's statement to Woodward was "certainly regrettable," it was "not some ham-fisted attempt to intimidate Woodward."

At Herman Cain's website, Robert Laurie wrote, "I'm not seeing any threat. It's a real stretch to claim this back and forth is, in any way, menacing."

link (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/28/we-got-played-conservatives-abandon-dubious-woo/192838)

[jdrgator]

Woodward sure perceived that way because he said so. This is typical Chicago thuggery. I understand what you guys don't want to see. This is clear and it is a threat.

Please. Woodward is crying like a stuck pig because he got heat from other journos for getting his facts wrong so now he is playing up something that is not threatening as if it is. Even some conservative journos out there realize this. but the question is, did you read the email exchange? Woodward's response in the email = very different from what he's saying now.

Then again, only in a twisted world where one sends an email to another, opening with an apology and closing with a second apology is it now a threat. I'd say come back to reality, brotha...you are getting played.

[JerseyGator01]

Woodward - honest when investigating a Pub. Dishonest when investigating a Dem.

Same old Too Hot. At least this place is consistent.'

CORRUPTION RULES!!!!!

[MastaG8r]

If the email is the extent of it, I wouldn't interpret it as a threat.

But there was clearly other things happening before the email (as it indicates). I don't think anyone's in position to judge the "threatiness" of the email on its own.Exactly. Disappointing that no one acknowledged this before you. Sperling felt the need to apologize twice for raising his voice. Why is a high-ranking admin official yelling at a reporter, and one of America's most distinguished reporters at that? Where's the professionalism?

If Woodward says that this admitted yelling by Sperling had a threatening tone then I believe him. I'm not aware of him having any history of making things up. But if the Left wants to now put his credibility at issue then hey, let's re-open the Watergate investigation.

[neisgator]

Well then you condone making threats. Very nice

Just don't threaten him that GW is fake. He won't condone that.

[MastaG8r]

Yes, Woodward certainly said it was a threat. And, as has already been explained to you, it can also perceived as telling Woodward that he won't like it when he realizes he's wrong.
So let me ask again: Why are conservatives who are so willing to blast Obama for everything saying it's clear that there was no threat?Which conservatives are those? Not saying there aren't any but I'd like to see their names so we can put down for the record that you respect the credibility of those individuals.

[rivergator]

Which conservatives are those? Not saying there aren't any but I'd like to see their names so we can put down for the record that you respect the credibility of those individuals.

Already posted several. You just need to read the thread. But, wait, there's more:

Byron York: After reading Sperling-Woodward email, it's nowhere close to a threat. Agree with @mattklewis: People who made big deal of this got played.

Keith Urbahn: Vintage Woodward: Cherry-pick a friendly exchange, make it sinister & vault himself into the media. Did it with Rummy in State of Denial.

[gatorman_07732]

Please. Woodward is crying like a stuck pig because he got heat from other journos for getting his facts wrong so now he is playing up something that is not threatening as if it is. Even some conservative journos out there realize this. but the question is, did you read the email exchange? Woodward's response in the email = very different from what he's saying now.

Then again, only in a twisted world where one sends an email to another, opening with an apology and closing with a second apology is it now a threat. I'd say come back to reality, brotha...you are getting played.

You don't know how right you are in the MSM is whipping his ass for him calling out Obama for his lie. He now has a target on his back and they are going to try to destroy him. This is nothing for than street thug mentality. How dare he do what he did against Obama.

[MastaG8r]

Already posted several. You just need to read the thread. But, wait, there's more:

Byron York: After reading Sperling-Woodward email, it's nowhere close to a threat. Agree with @mattklewis: People who made big deal of this got played.

Keith Urbahn: Vintage Woodward: Cherry-pick a friendly exchange, make it sinister & vault himself into the media. Did it with Rummy in State of Denial.Okay, cool. So next time one of these folks gets quoted in support of a Conservative viewpoint you'll respond to their message rather than attack the messenger. Great!

[vertigo0923]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/28/bob-woodward-trolled-us-and-we-got-played/



this whole thing was nothing.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Chuck Hagel (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/01/obama-to-nominate-virulently-anti-israel-chuck-hagel-for-defense-secretary.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

Former Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) would probably have agreed with Brooks. According to the Jerusalem Post, he was “one of a handful of senators who frequently didn’t sign AIPAC-backed letters related to Israel and the peace process during his time in the Senate and opposed additional sanctions on Iran.”

Apparently, like Brooks, he has faced criticism for these anti-Israel stances – and has complained that “the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people.”[ii]

Yet Hagel himself doesn’t seem to have been particularly intimidated. In the Senate he amassed a significant track record as one of a hardline hater of Israel who would not affix his name even to the most innocuous pro-Israel initiative. When all but four Senators signed a pro-Israel statement in 2000, Hagel was one of the holdouts. The next year, he was again among the few Senators – eleven this time – who refused to add their names to a statement urging George W. Bush not to meet with Yaser Arafat as long as the Palestinian groups under his control continued to pursue violence against Israel. In 2005, Hagel, along with 26 other senators, opposed a call to the Palestinian Authority to disqualify terror groups from participating in elections. And when twelve senators wrote to the European Union in 2006 asking that the EU join the U.S. in classifying Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, Hagel was once again one of the few.[iii]

[jdrgator]

You don't know how right you are in the MSM is whipping his ass for him calling out Obama for his lie. He now has a target on his back and they are going to try to destroy him. This is nothing for than street thug mentality. How dare he do what he did against Obama.

hahaha. The response by the media has been to point out how, in fact, Woodward erred on his original criticism since his own reporting undermined it. I've been following this too, you know.

You fancy the term street thug, but that's just creative fiction. Funny though how all of a sudden some love and trust some msm folk. Be careful though, the winds might change tomorrow. ;)

[Row6]

The Staggeringly Bad Judgment Of Bob Woodward
FEB 28 2013 @ 10:05PM

"Well, he asked for it. He is a stenographer, who is very, very well connected to the old Washington (which Obama’s online political revolution disturbed), and a dutiful gatherer of whatever those in power say they do and have done. But after his implosion over the last 24 hours – exposed as a whiny liar by his own email – Chait puts the boot in:

His more recent books often compile interesting facts, but how Woodward chooses to package those facts has come to represent a barometric measure of a figure’s standing within the establishment. His 1994 account of Bill Clinton’s major budget bill, which in retrospect was a major success, told a story of chaos and indecision. He wrote a fulsome love letter to Alan Greenspan, “Maestro,” at the peak of the Fed chairman’s almost comic prestige. In 2003, when George W. Bush was still a decisive and indispensable war leader, Woodward wrote a heroic treatment of the Iraq War. After Bush’s reputation had collapsed, Woodward packaged essentially the same facts into a devastating indictment. Woodward’s book on the 2011 debt negotiations was notable for arguing that Obama scotched a potential deficit deal. The central argument has since been debunked by no less a figure than Eric Cantor, who admitted to Ryan Lizza that he killed the deal."

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/02/28/the-staggeringly-bad-judgment-of-bob-woodward/

[fredsanford]

Woodward is a great gatherer of facts. However, he is a terrible analyst of said facts once he has them.

[rivergator]

Woodward seems all ovr the place on this. In an interview with the Wash Post, he says he never characterized it as a threat. Then he tells Hannity the email was code for 'you better watch out.'

[fairfaxgator]

Woodward was his own "Deepthroat"...

[JerseyGator01]

Now all of the ObamaBorg in the media are turning on him. Their messiah worship has no limit. Woodward must be assimilated or die.

[MastaG8r]

Woodward is a great gatherer of facts. However, he is a terrible analyst of said facts once he has them.LOL, that's the spin line the Leftosphere has put out so they can reconcile attacking him for going after 0bama and deifying him for getting Nixon.

[Row6]

Woodward justly became famous for working hard as a young reporter with no pull who doggedly pursued the story that ultimately ended Nixon's Presidency. He became the stenographer for the famous and powerful who spoon fed him narratives which he called books, and often from one source who's role became near heroic. Apparently he hasn't gotten traction in this White House with anyone like that and doesn't like looking in from the outside anymore. It's tough to get old and in the way, especially when you're used to having things easy and your way.

[FlyingGatorII]

Woodward justly became famous for working hard as a young reporter with no pull who doggedly pursued the story that ultimately ended Nixon's Presidency. He became the stenographer for the famous and powerful who spoon fed him narratives which he called books, and often from one source who's role became near heroic. Apparently he hasn't gotten traction in this White House with anyone like that and doesn't like looking in from the outside anymore. It's tough to get old and in the way, especially when you're used to having things easy and your way.

Same old liberal spin. If they say what we like, they are geniuses. If they go against us, time to attack. I have seen libs quoting guys they usually mock (York, Cain, Carlson, Hume etc) because they are agreeing with them. Forget the fact that several others have said Obama's White House plays dirty pool with the press that doesn't print what they want, just attack Woodward. Their intellectual dishonesty is sickening to me as is their willful ignorance of wrongdoing when their guy is the one violating ethics. Let a guy take a drink of water during a speech though and the attack is back on.

[northgagator]

Poor Bobby. Obviously he's more used to being a willing mouth piece for whatever inside source dictates his books to him. Guess Obama snubbed him somewhere along the line.

Over the years who has a better track record when it comes to creditability, Woodard or Obama?

For much of his career Woodard had played it straight. He has criticized and praise leaders from both parties.

Questions:
Did you noticed how Obama handled the question yesterday when a reporter asked him what he could if done better or different about getting a deal with the Repubs? He ducked and dodged for five minutes and stated. In a round about way that he does not have any blame to own.

Are you aware that the Sequester is only going to be $85 billion in cuts?

Are you aware that with the use of contingency plans and funds that these cuts are actually $40 billion

Are you aware that these cuts when compared to a $3 Trillion dollar budgets only represent a reduction of one cent per each dollar?

[gatorman_07732]

hahaha. The response by the media has been to point out how, in fact, Woodward erred on his original criticism since his own reporting undermined it. I've been following this too, you know.

You fancy the term street thug, but that's just creative fiction. Funny though how all of a sudden some love and trust some msm folk. Be careful though, the winds might change tomorrow. ;)

Come on jdr, you the press has Obama's back.

[Row6]

Over the years who has a better track record when it comes to creditability, Woodard or Obama?

For much of his career Woodard had played it straight. He has criticized and praise leaders from both parties.

Questions:
Did you noticed how Obama handled the question yesterday when a reporter asked him what he could if done better or different about getting a deal with the Repubs? He ducked and dodged for five minutes and stated. In a round about way that he does not have any blame to own.

Are you aware that the Sequester is only going to be $85 billion in cuts?

Are you aware that with the use of contingency plans and funds that these cuts are actually $40 billion

Are you aware that these cuts when compared to a $3 Trillion dollar budgets only represent a reduction of one cent per each dollar?

Obama is a politician an as such is not expected to be objective. Hope that doesn't come as a shock to you, though you're a smart guy and must know that. Woodward established credibility with Watergate but since then has become an insider who publishes books dictated to him by other insiders.

I didn't think this thread is about the sequester so I'm not really feeling a need to respond, though I will note that both sides agreed at the time it was passed that it was stop gap and a bad idea that was supposed to force a better more thought out plan. That most republicans now embrace it interesting and we'll see what happens. As to it's scale, a 1% drop in GDP is similarly a seemingly small amount but in reality involves real pain for many Americans, not to mention could help us reach a tipping point. As I said, we'll see what happens, but I'm not smart enough to try and predict it.

[DaveFla]

Liberals eat their own...

[jdrgator]

Come on jdr, you the press has Obama's back.

I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out such a categorical statement, gman. :)