Attack on Bob Woodward: "...you will regret doing this"

[Wehrwolfen]

So it's a phantom email, sent by one whose name cannot be spoken??

Indeed...

Sure Drooler... We all know that Oblamer used Sperling to threaten Woodward.

 

[Lakhota]

What does Woodward consider a "threat"...?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So it's a phantom email, sent by one whose name cannot be spoken??

Indeed...

Sure Drooler... We all know that Oblamer used Sperling to threaten Woodward.

Kind of like you knew all the polls were wrong that said Obama was going to win the election?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Bob Woodward says he was threatened by White House ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

 

[RoadVirus]

Woodward is a doofus, but struggling to remain relevant.

It Would Seem That Bob Woodward Does Not Understand How The Constitution Works

Woodward insulted Obama, so that means Lakhota the Fake Indian and HuffPuff are going to attack him.

 

[Katzndogz]

So it's a phantom email, sent by one whose name cannot be spoken??

Indeed...

Sure Drooler... We all know that Oblamer used Sperling to threaten Woodward.

I heard speculation that it was Valerie Jarrett.

 

[Katzndogz]

Woodward is a doofus, but struggling to remain relevant.

It Would Seem That Bob Woodward Does Not Understand How The Constitution Works

Woodward insulted Obama, so that means Lakhota the Fake Indian and HuffPuff are going to attack him.

Attack him and bring up Bush. And everyone is supposed to be diverted to Bush, leaving obama alone.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Woodward is a doofus, but struggling to remain relevant.

It Would Seem That Bob Woodward Does Not Understand How The Constitution Works

Woodward insulted Obama, so that means Lakhota the Fake Indian and HuffPuff are going to attack him.

Attack him and bring up Bush. And everyone is supposed to be diverted to Bush, leaving obama alone.

I see a typographical error in your post. The proper spelling is "Boooooooosh."

 

[NYcarbineer]

What does Woodward consider a "threat"...?

Good publicity. That's why you would fabricate a 'threat', which, until actual evidence is produced,

is all this is. A fabrication. Woodward is smart enough to know that as soon as he tossed this out, it would be all over the political media world,

aka, his market.

 

[Katzndogz]

Woodward produced the actual threatening e-mail. Now the Palinizing of Woodward has begun. But exposing obama's threats had a secondary effect. Lanny Davis, another reporter, has reported being threatened in just the same way.

How many reporters have been threatened like this and can the liberals destroy them all?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I just read the emails. Holy CRAP what a non-story.

Rightwingers are children...

...with all due respect to children.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What does Woodward consider a "threat"...?

Good publicity. That's why you would fabricate a 'threat', which, until actual evidence is produced,

is all this is. A fabrication. Woodward is smart enough to know that as soon as he tossed this out, it would be all over the political media world,

aka, his market.

Ignoring the facts does not make them go away.
Keep fooling yourself. Helps you sleep better during the day.

 

[Katzndogz]

How much of the lap dog media is the lap dog media because of threats?

Two reporters have come forward so far. Hopefully more will get this kind of courage.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I just read the emails. Holy CRAP what a non-story.

Rightwingers are children...

...with all due respect to children.

First you claimed the emails didn't exist. Now you find out they do so you try to marginalize the response to them.

I don't believe you could be more predictable.

 

[paperview]

I just read the emails. Holy CRAP what a non-story.

Rightwingers are children...

...with all due respect to children.

lol.

Innit precious?

‘WE GOT PLAYED’

Conservatives Regret Taking Woodward Seriously

Now that the correspondence between Bob Woodward and the White House has been revealed as tame and cordial, conservative commentators are reacting with disappointment to the veteran journalist’s claim that he was threatened over his sequestration reporting.

 

[paperview]

And the Daily Caller is saying: they were "trolled" by Woodward.

 

[paperview]

Here are the emails:

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

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

Woodward was obviously shakin' in his boots.

 

[Polk]

LOLz

Yeah American Pravda is going to turn against their Ossiah

LOLz

The Post is constantly cheerleading for the right.

 

[Polk]

Here are the emails:

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

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

Woodward was obviously shakin' in his boots.

You could cut the tension with a knife.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Here are the emails:

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

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

Woodward was obviously shakin' in his boots.

If those are the emails Woodward is talking about his credibility is shot.