Top Administration Official Threatened Woodward

[Row6]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Are these jack boots you mentioned?

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

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]

Originally Posted by rivergator

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]

Originally Posted by G8trGr8t

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/bo...#ixzz2MDXZEkvY

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

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]

Originally Posted by rivergator

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]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

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]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

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?...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]

Originally Posted by rivergator

catch the contradiction in that?

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

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by FlyingGatorII

So is Lanny then I guess.

http://www.wmal.com/common/page.php?...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]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Well then you condone making threats. Very nice

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

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by rivergator

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]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

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.