• 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 heard the WH didn't know that someone dissed Bob Woodward. And Obama knew nothing about releasing those illegal immigrants from prison either.



Sounds like "What we have here is (a) failure to communicate".
 
Woodward doesn't strike me as a guy who scares easy.

He'll be back to the White House.
Oh, I don't doubt that at this point. No, he's not about to let it go now. This whole thing is now officially an "event". Whether it's significant or not remains to be seen. I suspect not, but I was wrong at least once before. Don't push me on that, or I'll be forced to revise it.
 
Fine with me.

I have lots of time to waste (I hope.)

good.

Now the question journalists should be asking Woodward, is why did he not challenge this threat in the email and did so publicly.

He is clearly facing down this perceived threat now. So why appear friendly then, and claim the threat now?

It is a valid question, but also one that a person honestly threatened can have a good explanation for.
 
the elephant in the room no one is discussing is what was the conversation Woodward had with the WH official that was referenced in the email .what was the content and the attitude of that conversation? The email confirmed it was heated, That conversation needs to be added to the equation to put it in proper context before you can make an honest determination if Woodward is being genuine when he said it was a threat
 
Oh, I don't doubt that at this point. No, he's not about to let it go now. This whole thing is now officially an "event". Whether it's significant or not remains to be seen. I suspect not, but I was wrong at least once before. Don't push me on that, or I'll be forced to revise it.



Do you think that Woodward will ever regret doing what he did?

Edith Piaf didn't: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3Kvu6Kgp88

She said: Non, Je ne regrette rien.

I agree with her.

I have no regrets either, I have always done what I wanted to do and I'm prepared to live with the results.

Good, bad, or indifferent.
 
Last edited:
good.

Now the question journalists should be asking Woodward, is why did he not challenge this threat in the email and did so publicly.

He is clearly facing down this perceived threat now. So why appear friendly then, and claim the threat now?

It is a valid question, but also one that a person honestly threatened can have a good explanation for.

Him coming forward with the threat was in response to the WH trying to discredit Woodward because he screwed up the democrat narrative that it was the republicans idea for the sequester. there for the blame needed to be laid at their feet. when the truth of the matter confirmed by Woodward book and Jay Carny the idea did come from Obama
 
Do you think that Woodward will ever regret doing what he did?

Edith Piaf didn't: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3Kvu6Kgp88

She said: Non, Je ne regrette rien.

I agree with her.

I have no regrets either, I have always done what I wanted to do and I'm prepared to live with the results.

Good, bad, or indifferent.
No. I think Woodward has been around long enough now to consider his comments and their likely repercussions before he speaks.
 
Yep, and it's virtually absent.

Who do consider a credible journalist?

Keeping in mind, Woodward is an icon granted immense respect by both the left and the right.

I'm hoping you name a particular writer for the Times...we'll see what cerebralism lay absent
 
Who do consider a credible journalist?



Mark Twain.

I guarantee you that he won't be changing any of his comments.

The rest of them all have their finger in the wind.
 
I would like to know how many damaging stories have been sat on and or not perused because of threats and intimidation by the WH
How many future stories will not be pursued for the same reasons

Lany Davis came forward today and admitted to the WH threatening to pull the Washington Times WH press credentials who Lanny write for if they didn't drop his columns
 
Woodward is a little long in the tooth to try and unjustly persecute another president. He should have quit with Nixon.
 
Woodward is a little long in the tooth to try and unjustly persecute another president. He should have quit with Nixon.



The only injustice in the case of Nixon was that he got off too easy.

He should have been locked up.
 
I would like to know how many damaging stories have been sat on and or not perused because of threats and intimidation by the WH
How many future stories will not be pursued for the same reasons

Lany Davis came forward today and admitted to the WH threatening to pull the Washington Times WH press credentials who Lanny write for if they didn't drop his columns

Who knows really, but these kind of threats are nothing new from this administration and still liberals deny them right and left. I used to wonder when they will figure out something is up, but they are too into the crotch to see any sort of light.
 
Woodward is a little long in the tooth to try and unjustly persecute another
president. He should have quit with Nixon.

Yep, there it is. The Woodward's suffering from Alzheimers Liberal meme.

Unjust is trying to push a false narrative about the sequester, ( Which is all on BO ) and then sending one of your higher ups to go shakedown a journalist.

What you guys are willing to compromise to protect a President who's doing massive amounts of damage to this economy and the economies to come is unbelievable.

But, you know what they say, "At the core of every Liberal is the remnants of at least one great compromise".

A Top WH official visited a historically objective reporter and tried to get him to pull or change his story, and you guys are attacking the JOURNALIST ?

Keep it up. Please.
 
Who knows really, but these kind of threats are nothing new from this administration and still liberals deny them right and left. I used to wonder when they will figure out something is up, but they are too into the crotch to see any sort of light.
would you think that the press would have sat on a story if the Bush administration intimidated them, But it is more creditable to believe that they would if Obama did
 
Who knows really, but these kind of threats
are nothing new from this
administration and still liberals deny them right and left. I used to wonder when they will figure out something is up, but they are too into the crotch to see any sort of light.

Liberals by their nature will never question any action by this President. I dont care if the guy sends at ATF squads to forcefully remove weapons from the homes of law abiding citizens.

They will rationalize it some how.

It's because one, IMO they have serious underlying unresolved emotional problems and two use their ideology to define the truth.

Not the truth to define their ideology.

It's a corrupt agenda. Rotten to the core. It's the agenda of "the means justifies the ends" and its why they fail continuosly.
 
The source of the e-mail is the guy/people who sent the e-mail.



And the recipient was the critter that got it.

Now that we have established those points we can move on with this fabulous farce.
 
Last edited:
would you think that the press would have sat on a story if the Bush administration intimidated them, But it is more
creditable to believe that they would if Obama did

They would want him impeached. And the left wing press would ridiculously go all "Constitutional" on us and not let up.

The hypocrisy is glaring.
 
They would want him impeached. And the left wing press would ridiculously go all "Constitutional" on us and not let up.

The hypocrisy is glaring.

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.
 
I just noticed that the title of this thread is "White House threatens Bob Woodward.

How does a building threaten someone?

Any ideas on that?

Maybe someone meant to say "Someone at White House threatens Bob Woodward", eh?

That make a little more sense, eh?

Even if it's a lie.
 
What should we do?

Any ideas?

How about if we don't do anything, and just wait and see what happens?

I have an idea. Calm down, realize the media will temporarily clash on anything that seems to interfere with their right to a free press, uphold democracy, or whatever other platitude, and sometimes some stories float better than others. Woodward's email being leaked out to the press and the subsequent dismissal of Woodward can be chalked up to it being a less than successful attempt to galvanize the press into a more sustained frenzy.

Don't worry. Just wait for some reporter to get caught in the cross-fire in the next foreign affairs disaster somewhere on earth, and the viewer will be exposed to even more platitudes of journalistic virtue and glory.
 
And the recipient was the critter that got it.

Now that we have established those points we can move on with this fabulous farce.

I've always liked the definition of the word "fabulous". It comes directly from the the latin 'fabul', ie. 'fable'. That's what this is. A fable. No threat was made. Ever. It was an exchange between two guys disagreeing on an issue.
 
Back
Top Bottom