• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House threatens Bob Woodward

i'm a lil shocked at the attacks on Woodward in here...
we aren't talking about some shmoe reporter that hasn't made his bones... it's Bob Woodward, arguably the best reporter this country has ever seen.

it's just business as usual... folks love Bob when he's "attacking" their political opponents.. they hate him when he goes after their side.


oh, and Gene Sperling is the guy who yelled at Bob and sent the email ....and the whole White House is miffed at Woodward for having the audacity to tell the truth about sequestration.
 
The goal post is exactly where I left it on page four. How is that email at all a threat? I can feel threatened by a lot of things, and I can claim to feel threatened by a lot more. That doesn't make every loud noise a threat.

Then it might be wise for the WH to claim it was all a misunderstanding and Barrack Obama continues to stand by his earlier promises of 'transparency' in government.

Bob Woodward, no right winger he, has seen presidents come and go, and he'll see Barrack Obama disappear into the shadows after his eight year run also.
 
So you are saying that Nixon was a good guy who should not have answered for his crimes?
Fill in the details.

Standard lib tactic, put words in someones mouth, then try to get them to defend what they never said all in a pathetic attempt to change the subject.
 
I don't even need one. Because I don't think that the email in question was a threat.

Whether you think it was threatening or not is irrelevant. The e-mail was sent to Woodward. When the e-mail is directed at you then you can decide if you are being threatened.
 
i'm a lil shocked at the attacks on Woodward in here...
we aren't talking about some shmoe reporter that hasn't made his bones... it's Bob Woodward, arguably the best reporter this country has ever seen.

it's just business as usual... folks love Bob when he's "attacking" their political opponents.. they hate him when he goes after their side.


oh, and Gene Sperling is the guy who yelled at Bob and sent the email ....and the whole White House is miffed at Woodward for having the audacity to tell the truth about sequestration.

Did Woodward finally release the email and the name?
 
i'm a lil shocked at the attacks on Woodward in here... we aren't talking about some shmoe reporter that hasn't made his bones... it's Bob Woodward, arguably the best reporter this country has ever seen.



Bob Woodward is just another critter who ran his mouth before he turned his brain on.

Not the first time and it won't be the last time.

They hung the last perfect guy on the cross.

I'll bet that a lot of people in the G-nO-P regret running Mitt RMoney for President last year. If they don't, they have a problem.



"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
 
Last edited:
My bad on the name. I need to go be a productive citizen, but here's the exchange from Politico.

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.

And the reply from Woodward:
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

Again, I ask, how on Earth was that threatening?

So because it's Woodward we're supposed to just take his word for it? Which word? The one where he said he was threatened or the response where he said, "I for one welcome a little heat" and "You do not ever have to apologize to me"?

I'm sorry, but this isn't a story. This is an attention-grab.

Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed - Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei - POLITICO.com
 
President made a bad bet and now he wants to blame someone else for the results.


Everyone who is surprised here, please raise your hands?
 
Did Woodward finally release the email and the name?

nope... Woodward did not... but we know who it was.

Woodward isn't known for outting sources.... he kept Deepthroat under wraps until the guy came forward himself.


what is all boils down to is credibility.... Woodward has it in spades.
 
Bob Woodward is just another critter who ran his mouth before he turned his brain on.

Not the first time and it won't be the last time.

They hung the last perfect guy on the cross.

I'll bet that a lot of people in the G-nO-P regret running Mitt RMoney last year. If they don't, they should



"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.

I'm sure Nixon believed the same thing about Bob running his mouth before he turned on his brain too.
 
I bet when Bob Woodward came down on the Bush White House, you were ready to take his word to the bank. But, now that he's kicking Obama's ass, Woodward is suddenly a liar.

Nice!

Prove it? Thanks. I'll wait.
 
Obama doesn't care about the sequestration. He cares about the political optics of it, and they aren't working out for him as planned. Woodward has a hand in the failure of the left to hang this on congressional republicans, and he won't be forgiven for it. When the office of the most powerful political entity in the world tells you that you will regret saying this or that, you'd better take it seriously.
 
I'm sure Nixon believed the same thing about Bob running his mouth before he turned on his brain too.



Keep believing whatever you want to believe.

Wait and see how all this turns out for the G-nO-P.

Check the polls. The GOP is on the losing side of this kerfuffle.

Believe whatever you want to believe. That worked out great for Karl Rove last November, eh?

That's all that I need to say on this.

Have a nice day and a wonderful life.
 
Last edited:
I don't know if the linked story updated sometime after your posts, but I believe it's in the story

No clue yet on releasing of the email.

Woodward claimed Wednesday night that a White House aide sent him an email saying he would "regret" his comments. The aide was not identified, but an official familiar with the exchange told Fox News it was National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling. 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.

Read more: White House denies staffer threatened Watergate journalist Woodward | Fox News

Another unnamed official said it was Gene Sperling, not Bob Woodward.
 
Keep believing whatever you want to believe.

Wait and see how all this turns out for the G-nO-P.

Check the polls. The GOP is on the losing side of this kerfuffle.

That's all that I need to say on this.

The bolded really isn't the issue at all. The issue is accusations of a WH rep threatening a journalist, and a serious journalist at that. If it were some Fox News bimbo who made the claim, I'd be skeptical. With Woodward making it, I'm inclined to believe him. He has credibility and a long history of journalistic integrity.
 
Keep believing whatever you want to believe.

Wait and see how all this turns out for the G-nO-P.

Check the polls. The GOP is on the losing side of this kerfuffle.

That's all that I need to say on this.

you have something in common with the current white house too.... the most important thing is making sure the GOP is on the "losing side".


unlike you, I don't care how it turns out for the GOP...I'm not a Republocrat.

unlike You, Nixon, and Obama... I actually trust Woodward... he's earned his credibility.
 
So the e-mail comes out and it's not the "threat" Bob Woodward comes out claiming it was:

1. 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 — 2. 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 3. 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.

1. He makes an apology. Good start to a threat I always say.
2. Tells him he's not focusing properly. Again, good lead up to a threat.
3. Big bad threat boiled down: Your opinion is wrong, and you'll be proven wrong eventually.

-------

I was waiting for: We'll ruin your journalism career or you'll never work in this town again!

I guess it was too much to hope for. Once again, much ado about nothing. The fact that Bob Woodward himself replied with the long version of 'it's cool dude', pretty much destroys any credibility the OP and Woodward had on calling the e-mail a threat.
 
So the e-mail comes out and it's not the "threat" Bob Woodward comes out claiming it was:



1. He makes an apology. Good start to a threat I always say.
2. Tells him he's not focusing properly. Again, good lead up to a threat.
3. Big bad threat boiled down: Your opinion is wrong, and you'll be proven wrong eventually.

-------

I was waiting for: We'll ruin your journalism career or you'll never work in this town again!

I guess it was too much to hope for. Once again, much ado about nothing. The fact that Bob Woodward himself replied with the long version of 'it's cool dude', pretty much destroys any credibility the OP and Woodward had on calling the e-mail a threat.

Looks like Stalin himself would pen. This Whitehouse is a group of tyrants!
 
What a small, limp, sad little presidency this is.
 
Another unnamed official said it was Gene Sperling, not Bob Woodward.

Woodward is not known for naming his sources.... good reporters protect their sources so they can maintain access.
you're making a silly argument here.


FWIW, I don't think Bob was "threatened" per say... I think "pressured" is a bit more accurate of a term...every administration tries to pressure and manipulate the press.
 
Looks like Stalin himself would pen. This Whitehouse is a group of tyrants!

I seriously was hoping to be wrong on this. However, I stated that AT BEST, this was a case of Bob Woodward hyping up an e-mail and at worst a lie. I've seen more threatening comments on Debate Politics. I mean we've had people here advocate the killing of cops, blacks, women, rape, child abuse and it's all been X'ed off as nothing more than rants by ****ed up people on the internet. This just seems like an exchange between two guys who disagree during their 9-5s and then have a beer after work.
 
Back
Top Bottom