PDA

View Full Version : Bob Woodward Threatened by White House




libertyjam
02-27-2013, 06:16 PM
http://www.businessinsider.com/bob-woodward-obama-sequester-white-house-reporting-price-politics-2013-2

AuH20
02-27-2013, 06:16 PM
Fascist scum don't like sunlight! This type of story confirm exactly what Alex Jones and others have been reporting. We have maniacs running our government, who are not above threats or direct action if need be.

mad cow
02-27-2013, 06:58 PM
Deepthroat???

Danan
02-27-2013, 07:04 PM
"Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying, 'Oh, by the way, I can't do this because of some budget document?'" Woodward said on MSNBC.

"Or George W. Bush saying, 'You know, I'm not going to invade Iraq because I can't get the aircraft carriers I need?'" Or even Bill Clinton saying, 'You know, I'm not going to attack Saddam Hussein's intelligence headquarters,' ... because of some budget document?"

Yeah, can you imagine? I mean, that would be madness! :rolleyes:

coastie
02-27-2013, 07:07 PM
Earlier today on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Woodward ripped into Obama in what has become an ongoing feud between the veteran Washington Post journalist and the White House. Woodward said Obama was showing a "kind of madness I haven't seen in a long time" for a decision not to deploy an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf because of budget concerns.

The Defense Department said in early February that it would not deploy the U.S.S. Harry Truman to the Persian Gulf, citing budget concerns relating to the looming cuts known as the sequester.

"Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying, 'Oh, by the way, I can't do this because of some budget document?'" Woodward said on MSNBC.

"Or George W. Bush saying, 'You know, I'm not going to invade Iraq because I can't get the aircraft carriers I need?'" Or even Bill Clinton saying, 'You know, I'm not going to attack Saddam Hussein's intelligence headquarters,' ... because of some budget document?"

Woodward began stirring controversy last weekend, when he called out Obama for what he said was "moving the goal posts" on the sequester by requesting that revenue be part of a deal to avert it.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/bob-woodward-obama-sequester-white-house-reporting-price-politics-2013-2#ixzz2M9RmY1Hq

Well, our country wouldn't have lost 5,000 soldiers there for nothing if he did, Mr. Woodward. Nothing but bad things happened directly because of both pointless engagements you reference, it seems you haven't noticed...:rolleyes:

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
02-27-2013, 07:07 PM
Bob Woodward said this evening on CNN that a "very senior person" at the White House warned him in an email that he would "regret doing this," the same day he has continued to slam President Barack Obama over the looming forced cuts known as the sequester.


Then produce it.



Woodward said Obama was showing a "kind of madness I haven't seen in a long time" for a decision not to deploy an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf because of budget concerns.


Oh, boo fucking hoo. Sounds to me like they're all buddies.

NOVALibertarian
02-27-2013, 08:58 PM
Don't question our dear leader and his tactics.

acptulsa
02-27-2013, 09:11 PM
This is utterly amazing. Utterly amazing.

Bob Woodward is wrong. So, what does The President Who Insists All Journalists Praise Him do? Does he sit back and wait for the public to explain to Woodward that he's wrong? Nooooo. He has to go and be more wrong than Woodward is.

You know, I'm in the habit of calling that place where Washington sits the District of Calamity. But I think it has turned into the District of Craziness. Too bad it isn't D.I, because I'm more inclined to call it the District of Insanity.

NOVALibertarian
02-27-2013, 09:53 PM
I wonder how many other threatening emails the White House has sent out to journalists under Obama?

anaconda
02-27-2013, 10:12 PM
I think I am finding out that politics is too complicated for me to follow or understand.

jmdrake
02-27-2013, 10:17 PM
So Woodward attacks Obama for not being enough of a spendthrift tyrant and the someone in the Obama administration decides to be more of a tyrant? :confused:

AuH20
02-27-2013, 10:18 PM
So Woodward attacks Obama for not being enough of a spendthrift tyrant and the someone in the Obama administration decides to be more of a tyrant? :confused:

I think it's more of calling his bluff with these fabricated cost-cutting measures.

AuH20
02-27-2013, 10:33 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdfHEdeCC0Q&feature=player_embedded

acptulsa
02-28-2013, 08:42 AM
If anyone still thinks Bob Woodward is something other than a government shill just because he made his name bringing down the would-be tyrant Nixon, let me ask you this: Where is Carl Bernstein?

The amazing thing to me is the unprecedented level of compliance which has been demanded of even liberal media hacks by the Obama Administration. There can no longer even be a tiny bit of discussion around the edges about how best to advance the New Totalitarianism. And it seems you can't even mention Monsanto any more without losing your Most Favored Propagandist status. It's fast becoming as much a 'touch it and fry' third rail as Israel has become.

VoluntaryAmerican
02-28-2013, 08:58 AM
Deepthroat???

"And never forget, the press is the enemy."

Richard Nixon

Lucille
02-28-2013, 09:04 AM
The statist hacks are upset. They worked hard getting Obama elected, and will not have one of their own criticizing him and, by extension, them.

The Night Planet Liberalism Turned on Bob Woodward
http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/27/the-night-planet-liberalism-turned-on-bo


It has been a special night on Twitter for those of us who take a perverse interest in the way that ideologically aligned journalists and politicos will pack-attack critics of a sitting American president. Seems that Washington Post investigative-journalism legend Bob Woodward crossed a bridge too far when, in talking about reaction to his narrative-debunking Feb. 22 piece pinning the origination of the sequester directly on a White House that had vociferously denied paternity, has now gone on to dish on a "senior White House official" (later identified as White House Economic Council Director Gene Sperling) who "yelled at me for about a half hour" about the op-ed, and warned that "I think you will regret staking out that claim."

Sperling's "threat" (if you can call it that) ranks a bit low on the things-to-be-worried-about totem pole, and Woodward is hardly an infallible source (here's my 2006 column comparing him to Judith Miller), but the reaction tonight from the leftosphere has been something to behold. A sampling:
[...]
Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation: Smart @thenation interns & young folks have no idea who Woodward is but dc establishment freaked about his critique of WH & sequester.

That says a lot about The Nation, and the state of higher ed., eh?


Jason Linkins, Huffington Post: I think Woodward will find people will stop yelling at him the very minute he decides to stop sucking so much at his job.

His job being...a good, loyal water-carrier for the O Duce admin.

More at the link.

Lucille
02-28-2013, 02:04 PM
The Most Openly and Transparently Thin-Skinned Administration in History
http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/28/the-most-openly-and-transparently-thin-s


Last night, as Beltway types and political bloggers wondered which White House staffer had screamed at reporter Bob Woodward and then sent him an email telling him he'd "regret" challenging Obama's sequestration narrative, I started tallying all the stories I'd heard about this administration overreacting to journalists and gadflies doing their jobs.

My first thought was of Valerie Jarret, who the New York Times desribed in a September profile as having "a tendency to take political criticism personally, 'even when it would be more useful not to.'" In that same profile, it was revealed that Jarrett had attacked ACLU President Anthony Romero for criticizing this administration's atrocious handling of the War on Terror. "Great harm has been done," Jarrett wrote to Romero. "There has been a material breach of trust.” The same NYT story also contained this anecdote: After Cornel West called Obama the “black mascot of Wall Street,” Jarrett, in a creepy echo of the Bush years, called him "un-American."

But as economic advisor Gene Sperling demonstrated by haranguing Woodward, it's not just Jarrett. This administration is obsessed with image management. Sometimes the focus on the president being portrayed a certain way results in cuddly stuff--Barack Obama slow-jamming the news, Michelle Obama doing the Dougie--and sometimes it results in the White House acting petulant, bizarre, and gross...

LOL More at the link.

White House Has a History of Threatening Reporters
http://reason.com/24-7/2013/02/28/white-house-has-a-history-of-threatening


I had angered the White House, particularly a senior White House official who I am unable to identify because I promised the person anonymity. Going back to my first political beat, covering Bill Clinton’s administration in Arkansas and later in Washington, I’ve had a practice that is fairly common in journalism: A handful of sources I deal with regularly are granted blanket anonymity. Any time we communicate, they know I am prepared to report the information at will (matters of fact, not spin or opinion) and that I will not attribute it to them.

This is an important way to build a transparent and productive relationship between reporters and the people they cover. Nothing chills a conversation faster than saying, “I’m quoting you on this.”

The official angered by my Woodward tweet sent me an indignant e-mail. “What’s next, a Nazi analogy?” the official wrote, chastising me for spreading “bull**** like that” I was not offended by the note, mild in comparison to past exchanges with this official. But it was the last straw in a relationship that had deteriorated.

As editor-in-chief of National Journal, I received several e-mails and telephone calls from this White House official filled with vulgarity, abusive language, and virtually the same phrase that Woodward called a veiled threat. “You will regret staking out that claim,” The Washington Post reporter was told.

Todd
02-28-2013, 02:19 PM
Woodward said Obama was showing a "kind of madness I haven't seen in a long time" for a decision not to deploy an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf because of budget concerns.

Yep Bob......this decision is the epitome of "madness".

It makes droning children in Asia, assassinating American citizens without due process, and running 16 trillion dollar deficits look well adjusted. :rolleyes:

Lucille
02-28-2013, 02:59 PM
Yep Bob......this decision is the epitome of "madness".

It makes droning children in Asia, assassinating American citizens without due process, and running 16 trillion dollar deficits look well adjusted. :rolleyes:

LOL Yup

CIA-Media in a Nutshell
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/133032.html


Glenn Greenwald: Bob Woodward, "Washington's most celebrated journalist, hails the values of militarism, lawlessness, and presidential omnipotence."

Re: Woodward
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/133035.html


Lew: As usual, Glenn Greenwald has it right. The qualities he mentions are what make Woodward "Washington's most celebrated journalist." They are characteristics that kept the likes of H.L. Mencken, Albert Jay Nock, John T. Flynn, Charles Beard, et al. - along with some notable moderns - from being "celebrated" by the corporate-state establishment.

cjm
02-28-2013, 03:46 PM
Bob Woodward said this evening on CNN that a "very senior person" at the White House warned him in an email that he would "regret doing this," the same day he has continued to slam President Barack Obama over the looming forced cuts known as the sequester.

In the eyes of the Sequester,
There's no place you can hide.
You can't hide from the eyes (of the Sequester)