• 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

Yep, I can believe Henry Kissinger saying that.
 
ARealConservative said:
Woodward came forward claiming he felt threatened. the link in this thread includes the portion of the email he felt was a threat. not sure what more you need here to come to your own conclusions.
Click to expand...
what more? the same thing i originally requested and something you were unable to provide: what was the threat
 
Ray410 said:
Obama survives because the media is in his pocket. If they ever rebel and start telling the truth about him, he is gone. He will be laughed out of the White House along with all of his worthless relatives.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the same media that broke this story in favor of Woodward? :lamo

Do you even read the **** you post! :lamo
 
justabubba said:
what more? the same thing i originally requested and something you were unable to provide: what was the threat
Click to expand...

he took the line about regretting this action as a threat.
 
ARealConservative said:
free speech protects us from government intrusion, not from employers looking to prevent bad publicity.

Why do so many liberals get that wrong?
Click to expand...

Was Woodward jailed or prevented from exercising his free speech?
 
Fenton said:
Who's more qualified to determine whether or not a threat was made ? Him or you ? Him.

Why did a top BO advisor call up and challenge Woodward and then scream at him.

Maybe the ACTUAL threat was in the shouting match.

How much you wanna bet. Woodwards already trying to detach Obama from this. Yea right
Click to expand...

if there was an actual threat it should be obvious to any reader. so, post what was considered the threat of continue to be found lacking ... like woodward
 
Fenton said:
Do you know who Woodward is? His history ? His godlike status in the world of journalism ?

He use to be their hero.

But what I think is going on here is that the threat Woodward seemed to be so upset about was actually made in the shouting match.

The BO official admits to raising his voice, things got heated and threats get made.

Because whats in the E-mail doesn't rise to Woodwards initial claim as a "kind of madness ".

Being shouted at and threatened by a White House Higher up ?

Its interesting that the admission and apology was posted too.
Click to expand...

Did you actually read the email exchange?
 
Cardinal said:
The "unnamed informant" in question was Gene Sperling, and here's the exchange:

Sperling: "I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. 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 ... My apologies again for raising my voice on the call with you. Feel bad about that and truly apologize."

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."

Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed - Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei - POLITICO.com

Yeah, real intimidating stuff. Another day, another bull**** sensationalist story.
Click to expand...

Why is it none of the right-wingers here won't acknowledge or comment on this point?

I think the reason is obvious.
 
justabubba said:
and what was threatening about that
Click to expand...

The most powerful entity in this country says you will regret you actions can be a bit unnerving. Maybe not to you., but they were to Mr Woodward. I see no reason to call him a liar over it.

He was quite clear in that he did not or would not allow these threats to intimidate him from speaking his mind, but he is also clear he is concerned how younger reporters just starting out would handle such a situation.
 
Texmex said:
Why is it none of the right-wingers here won't acknowledge or comment on this point?

I think the reason is obvious.
Click to expand...

Boredom?
 
calamity said:
Well, considered his response back the the WH read like he's saying, "No harm
done; no worries, mate." I'd say, he had no problem with it until he saw an opportunity to drum up some controversy.

BTW: Since when are Right Wingers big defenders of the free press? Must be something new because you guys went bananas in 2003 &4 when any journalist said anything negative about Bush-Cheney and the folly called invading Iraq.
Click to expand...

In the E-mail maybe. But not after the E-mail.

The Democrats voted for the Folley.

And the 2003-2004 criticism's were based on demagoguery.

Why did you guys quit counting dead soldiers again when Obama took office ?

Oh thats right, you never cared.
 
Texmex said:
Why is it none of the right-wingers here won't acknowledge or comment on this
point?

I think the reason is obvious.
Click to expand...

Why does the left here ignore that a journalist was called and yelled at by a top BO advisor for telling the truth ?
 
ARealConservative said:
The most powerful entity in this country says you will regret you actions can be a bit unnerving. Maybe not to you., but they were to Mr Woodward. I see no reason to call him a liar over it.

He was quite clear in that he did not or would not allow these threats to intimidate him from speaking his mind, but he is also clear he is concerned how younger reporters just starting out would handle such a situation.
Click to expand...
so, threatened he wrote this in reply:
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
Click to expand...
there was no threat. lots of embarrassment on woodward's part, however
 
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...

Did you read the actual exchange?
 
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...
so "threatened" he wrote this [my emphasis added]:
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
Click to expand...
 
justabubba said:
so, threatened he wrote this in reply:

there was no threat. lots of embarrassment on woodward's part, however
Click to expand...

The executive office was caught screaming at a journalist over a difference in opinions reporting facts.

Only shills would claim the party that is looking bad is the person being shouted down to.
 
justabubba said:
so, threatened he wrote this in reply:


there was no threat. lots of embarrassment on woodward's part, however
Click to expand...

Why would a high level WH official call a objective reporter and "raise" his voice over Woodwards accurate reporting of the Sequestor ?
 
Fenton said:
Why would a high level WH official call a objective reporter and "raise" his voice over Woodwards accurate reporting of the Sequestor ?
Click to expand...
he would raise his voice like many other people do when engaged in a disagreement
woodward is falsely trying to portray sequestration as Obama's idea
 
Personally I think the Senior WH advisor threatened him when he "raised his voice".

Liberals like to make threats when they're caught in a lie or not getting what they want.

In this case it was both.
 
Fenton said:
Personally I think the Senior WH advisor threatened him when he "raised his voice".
Click to expand...
yep. so "threatened" woodward replied to the "threat" as follows:
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
Click to expand...
Liberals like to make threats when they're caught in a lie or not getting what they want.

In this case it was both.
Click to expand...
there was no threat
but wingers, being without anything of substance, have to make **** up
 
justabubba said:
he would raise his voice like many other people do when engaged in a
disagreement
woodward is falsely trying to portray sequestration as Obama's idea
Click to expand...

Lol...WOW !

What you guys won't justify....unless it's a Repub in office.

A Senior WH representitve doesn't call a objective journalist to "disagree"...

They were just talking about their favorite sports teams....thats all.

No, he called to "change Woodwards. mind " or to "warn him".

Which is what he did. Woodwards story was sound. So what would he need to be warned for ?
 
Fenton said:
Lol...WOW !

What you guys won't justify....unless it's a Repub in office.

A Senior WH representitve doesn't call a objective journalist to "disagree"...

They were just talking about their favorite sports teams....thats all.

No, he called to "change Woodwards. mind " or to "warn him".

Which is what he did. Woodwards story was sound. So what would he need to be warned for ?
Click to expand...
please. POINT OUT THE THREAT
do that
show us that there was actually a threat
only then will you have posted anything worthy of reading
 
justabubba said:
yep. so "threatened" woodward replied to the "threat" as follows:


there was no threat
but wingers, being without anything of substance, have to make **** up
Click to expand...

I'm just wondering out loud.

I stand by Woodward. You guys elected a incompetent thug, its not Woodwards fault.

And the rest of us are paying for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom