• 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

Perotista said:
The media is what it is. Yes when it comes to the political coverage there are definite hypocrisy and slanted reporting. One has to learn to deal with.
Click to expand...



Correct.

Anyone who accepts what a lot of the media puts out like it's carved in stone by Almighty God will likely be misled from time to time.

That's the way that the news media works.

Or doesn't work.

As the case may be.
 
Last edited:
shrubnose said:
Correct.

Anyone who accepts what a lot of the media puts out like it's carved in stone by Almighty God will likely be misled from time to time.
Click to expand...

From time to time can turn out to be most of the time.
 
Don't know if this has been posted yet but... the Whitehouse put the emails out there:

From Gene Sperling to Bob Woodward on Feb. 22, 2013

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.

Gene

From Woodward to Sperling on Feb. 23, 2013

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

linkypoo...​

As usual with fake outrage, context destroys it all. Good luck trying to find intimidation or a "threat" with the context put around it. Looks more like an old hat trying to sell his books by fabricating a controversy with his name in it.

Amazingly though, there will be the few that will cling to the conspiracy like a birther on meth. :lol:
 
Thrilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

But Deepthroat didn't threaten him. If someone in the White House is running around threatening people then expose him.

Otherwise this "anonymous person emailed me" to me is no different than the guy on COPS tv show who can't remember the name of the person who loaned him their car.
 
Perotista said:
The media is what it is. Yes when it comes to the political coverage there are definite hypocrisy and slanted reporting. One has to learn to deal with.
Click to expand...
im disappointed people can be indifferent over this issue
The press has been given a very important responsibility granted to them by the constitution they are the only profession singled out in the constitution. and they are woefully neglecting that responsibility
they have the responsibility to dig for and report the truth not cover up or protect any administration no mater what their personal ideology is. The importance of the presses responsibility it is one of the checks and balances to help keep from a tyrannical government from gaining power

one of the first thing a dictator will do to gain and stay in power is the control of the press

so people are being indifferent at their own peril

democracy will fail if the press wont do or is kept from doing their job
 
Last edited:
Fenton said:
a threat ? Oh hell no there's no threat.

A reporter being told " your'e going to regret ...." anything by a top WH official when he posted a true story is a non-issue.

Completely a non issue. I mean if Rumsfeld had said the same to Woodward or even if Cheney had said something you guys would be here, denouncing Woodwards claim and sticking up for the high level WH official right ?
Click to expand...
then we have agreement
no threat
no legitimate faux news story
just woodward embarrassed at overplaying his hand
 
justabubba said:
then we have agreement
no threat
no legitimate faux news story
just woodward embarrassed at overplaying his hand
Click to expand...

I've gone to chinese restaurants and gotten scarier "threats" in my fortune cookie

But then, I remember how the rightwingers went nuts when bush*'s press secretary told the press that they better watch what they say....Oh WAIT!!


That never happened
 
trfjr said:
im disappointed people can be indifferent over this issue
The press has been given a very important responsibility granted to them by the constitution they are the only profession singled out in the constitution. and they are woefully neglecting that responsibility
they have the responsibility to dig for and report the truth not cover up or protect any administration no mater what their personal ideology is. The importance of the presses responsibility it is one of the checks and balances to help keep from a tyrannical government from gaining power

one of the first thing a dictator will do to gain and stay in power is the control of the press

so people are being indifferent at their own peril

democracy will fail if the press wont do or is kept from doing their job
Click to expand...


Ah, Freedom of the press. Don’t you realize at the time the framers wrote the Constitution through pretty much all of the 1800’s the press was never neutral. In fact most newspapers supported one candidate and told a bunch of lies about the others. The Federalist had their own newspapers, Jefferson’s Republicans had theirs and so it went, Whigs and Jackson’s Democrats each had newspapers and so it went. The press as the watch dogs of Democracy is a fairly new concept that came along probably after WWII. Even then papers like the Chicago tribune was known as a Republican Newspaper and the St. Louis Post Democrat was strictly Democratic. I haven’t the faintest idea if the St. Louis paper still is named Democrat. But names like this has its roots way back when when most newspapers were very partisan. Perhaps it was the advent of TV where at the time, late 40’s, early 50” when news reporting tried to take on an unbiased slant.

Congress had a lot to do with this move to unbiased reporting. Since they determined with TV that the airwaves were public, they passed the equal time act and some more. But that law has been repealed. Newspapers want to sell newspapers and TV wants viewers. If the news has to be slanted to achieve that, the media will do it. The New York Times is highly partisan to the left, being so helps the New York Times sell newspapers in New York, a high Democratic bastion.

Why do you think FOX news was born. ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN all tilted left, FOX seen an opportunity to attract the conservative viewers. They have done this very successfully. NBC seen the success of FOX and launched MSNBC, a very liberal Democratic channel. CNN once tilted very much to the left, now to regain viewers has started to move back toward the center. The media is what it is, a watchdog, not really. They are organizations that go after stories, scandals, news in a manner that will sell newspapers and attract viewers. The news is a very cut throat business.
 
justabubba said:
then we have agreement
no threat
no legitimate faux news story
just woodward embarrassed at overplaying his hand
Click to expand...

Faux ? Woodward hit CNN before he wen't to Fox.

Is it up to you to determine whether or not a credible threat was made ? Because you were there right, in the room, on the other line ?

No, your opinion and 5 bucks will buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

But that doesn't speak to the main issue here. Why is Obama sicking his senior WH officials on Journalist for telling the truth ? And why don't you have a problem with that ?
 
sangha said:
I've gone to chinese restaurants and gotten scarier "threats" in my fortune cookie

But then, I remember how the rightwingers went nuts when bush*'s press secretary told the press that they better watch what they say....Oh WAIT!!


That never happened
Click to expand...

Mitigate away it's a time honored tradition for people who use selective outrage as a way to remain relevant. Plus, it's 2013.

Do you or do you NOT have a problem with the executive branch sicking it's senior officials on objective journalist for telling the truth ?
 
Fenton said:
Faux ? Woodward hit CNN before he wen't to Fox.

Is it up to you to determine whether or not a credible threat was made ? Because you were there right, in the room, on the other line ?

No, your opinion and 5 bucks will buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

But that doesn't speak to the main issue here. Why is Obama sicking his senior WH officials on Journalist for telling the truth ? And why don't you have a problem with that ?
Click to expand...

The emails were publicly released as I posted on the last page in this thread. Good luck finding that harrowing threat that doesn't exist.
 
Fenton said:
But that doesn't speak to the main issue here. Why is Obama sicking his senior WH officials on Journalist for telling the truth ? And why don't you have a problem with that ?
Click to expand...



When did anyone on the right ever have a problem with anything that Bush or anyone in his mis-administration ever said or did?

For or against journalism or anything else.

Just sayin'.




"What goes around, comes around."

That is the way it works.
 
Last edited:
Fenton said:
No, your opinion and 5 bucks will buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
Click to expand...



Your opinion and five bucks will also buy you a cup of coffee.

So, what's your point?

Don't look to Bob Woodward for salvation.

There aren't any Watergates around here.

Have a nice day, and a long life under a long line of Democratic Presidents.
 
Fenton said:
Mitigate away it's a time honored tradition for people who use selective outrage as a way to remain relevant. Plus, it's 2013.

Do you or do you NOT have a problem with the executive branch sicking it's senior officials on objective journalist for telling the truth ?
Click to expand...

No, I have no problems with it.

Not even when it really actually happens.
 
sangha said:
No, I have no problems with it.Not even when it really actually happens.
Click to expand...



I totally agree.

A lot of people in this country can't handle the truth.

I offer this thread as evidence of that.
 
There was no threat. All we have here is a comment stating that Woodward would "regret" writing the piece--which I interpret to mean regret, as in the regret one has after stepping in dog poop.
 
humbolt said:
No. I think Woodward has been around long enough now to consider his comments and their likely repercussions before he speaks.
Click to expand...

Some would have you believe that he's growing senile. I'm astonished by some of the low public criticism.
 
Cardinal said:
I think you're guilty of not knowing what confirmation bias means.
Click to expand...

false.

you are guilty of it.

if a boss asks a women out, and she says no but is extremely polite while saying no, then later comes forward saying she felt threatened.

the boss is going to point to that friendly email exchange to prove she wasn't threatened. she still has a harassment case. a person in power telling a subordinate that they will regret their decision can be construed as a threat.

This thread reinforces all the problems we face as a nation. useful idiots on one side of the partisan divide always rush forward to make sure nobody digs deeper into potential governmental overreach.
 
nota bene said:
Some would have you believe that he's growing senile. I'm astonished by some of the low public criticism.
Click to expand...
It's odd. George Soros, who's older than dirt, somehow remains something other than a senile old fool buried in greed to some.
 
Fenton said:
Why does the left here ignore that a journalist was called and yelled at by a top BO advisor for telling the truth ?
Click to expand...

You mean he was YELLED AT! Maybe he should go home and tell his mommy all about it.
 
ARealConservative said:
exactly. the two things are in conflict.

and you choose to believe which one?

rolls eyes right back at you
Click to expand...

So tell me, was Woodward lying on Fox or lying in his email, which is it?
 
Texmex said:
So tell me, was Woodward lying on Fox or lying in his email, which is it?
Click to expand...

lets ask him.

If he really felt threatened he might of been lying in the email. then later he decided to sack up and not cower from those in power.
 
ARealConservative said:
lets ask him.

If he really felt threatened he might of been lying in the email. then later he decided to sack up and not cower from those in power.
Click to expand...
You really are naive. Must be a conservative trait.

Woodward vs. White House: Washington at its weirdest - The Washington Post

Only in Washington does a tempest turn on the meaning of the word “regret.”

...In an interview with CNN on Wednesday night, Woodward never used the word “threat” or said that he felt threatened. But he said Thursday: The White House has “the power. When someone says ‘you’ll regret something,’ they can use their power any way they want. It’s a tone question. . . . I’ve been dealing with White House people going back to the Nixon years. They called us every name in the book. [This] just strikes me as not a way to deal with this. It makes me uncomfortable.”

In a statement, the White House said that as “Mr. Woodward noted, the email from [Sperling] 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.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom