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

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I did not. I only made note that Woodward refused to reveal the email, or to reveal who sent the email. That was the absolute truth at the time;

it was the usual array of 'nuts on the right who were spouting off as if they actually had the facts.

Now that we see the real email, the whole story is a joke, and the joke's on you people.

 

[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.

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

Not that he should have had much credibility to start with, but yes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is like you're 19 and come home one day to tell your parents you're dropping out of college to join a heavy metal band,

and your mom says, gee, I think you may regret that some day...

 

[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.

I did not. I only made note that Woodward refused to reveal the email, or to reveal who sent the email. That was the absolute truth at the time;

it was the usual array of 'nuts on the right who were spouting off as if they actually had the facts.

Now that we see the real email, the whole story is a joke, and the joke's on you people.

The quoted phrase "you will regret this" is what has been all over the media. Where is that quote? And it appears you are right about it being a joke but I think its about his career more so than me or anyone else.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Bob Woodward on threat from White House staff: "?it makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters, you're going to regret doing something that you believe in" ? CNN Press Room - CNN.com Blogs

Is this 1973? How Nixonian. Wow! I thought the Left loved Woodward. Bob Woodward ought to look how the Left is betraying him while he holds to his Journalism principals.

Oh, Please, The White House Didn't 'Threaten' Bob Woodward​

Stupid Teabaggers​

 

[Polk]

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.

I did not. I only made note that Woodward refused to reveal the email, or to reveal who sent the email. That was the absolute truth at the time;

it was the usual array of 'nuts on the right who were spouting off as if they actually had the facts.

Now that we see the real email, the whole story is a joke, and the joke's on you people.

The quoted phrase "you will regret this" is what has been all over the media. Where is that quote? And it appears you are right about it being a joke but I think its about his career more so than me or anyone else.

That's a quote of Woodward's statement. It's a paraphrase of the email actually says.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I did not. I only made note that Woodward refused to reveal the email, or to reveal who sent the email. That was the absolute truth at the time;

it was the usual array of 'nuts on the right who were spouting off as if they actually had the facts.

Now that we see the real email, the whole story is a joke, and the joke's on you people.

The quoted phrase "you will regret this" is what has been all over the media. Where is that quote? And it appears you are right about it being a joke but I think its about his career more so than me or anyone else.

That's a quote of Woodward's statement. It's a paraphrase of the email actually says.

Imagine that.....Teabaggers, running-loose, with half a story.

 

[Katzndogz]

The left is making up it's own news, and it's own reaction.

Another reporter, Lanny Davis, has stepped forward to expose the threats he received too.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I did not. I only made note that Woodward refused to reveal the email, or to reveal who sent the email. That was the absolute truth at the time;

it was the usual array of 'nuts on the right who were spouting off as if they actually had the facts.

Now that we see the real email, the whole story is a joke, and the joke's on you people.

The quoted phrase "you will regret this" is what has been all over the media. Where is that quote? And it appears you are right about it being a joke but I think its about his career more so than me or anyone else.

That's a quote of Woodward's statement. It's a paraphrase of the email actually says.

The e-mail did use the word "regret." It has been paraphrased. To whatever extent Woodward claims to have taken the "regret" comment as a "threat," that claim is quite a stretch.

This White House is perfectly capable of playing in a heavy handed manner. But to be honest about it, viewed in context, it doesn't look like a "threat" was intended, after all.

I'd give the White House a pass on this one. This shit isn't worth the effort to discuss it. (Unless we later hear of some additional e-mails with something less ambiguous in them.)

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Everything is up for discussion these days now IlarMeilry:

1) The President has justified the execution of Americans citizens with neither a warrant nor due process of law.

2) The President has continued the Bush Era policy, they can lock you up forever without due process or a writ of Habeus Corpus.

3) The Department of Homeland Security has purchased billions of rounds of Hollow Point Ammunition, which is only useful (but very destructive) against civilian targets, since it cannot penetrate even the weakest armor.

4) They are looking to slowly confiscate all guns.

5) Republicans have been testing of the boundaries of the first Amendment with their Abortion legislation. The Right is looking to heavily restrict your First Amendment, Repeat, The Right is looking to heavily restrict your First Amendment. Once the Supreme Court makes a ruling about abortion and religious freedom (legislating abortion based on religious values and convictions), they will apply those same boundaries to every other right in the first Amendment (speech/assembly/grievances/press).

The Ninth and Tenth Amendment have been long dead.

So would you mind telling me, which Right from the Bill of the Rights we are actually able to enjoy these days?

Keep in mind, the threat of being killed/locked up forever without any due process, is actually A VERY EFFECTIVE MEANS of controlling FREEDOM OF SPEECH. It makes most people afraid to even talk about it.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Everything is up for discussion these days now IlarMeilry:

1) The President has justified the execution of Americans citizens with neither a warrant nor due process of law.

Much as I find this President to be an idiot and a terrible calamity for America, I reject that first point. He merely authorized the targeting of certain specific enemies of America in time of war. And the fact that they happen to be citizens of America doesn't change his right --and his duty as CinC -- to go after our enemies. Thee is no warrant required to target an enemy in war time and due process doesn't apply, either. It's not a crime he's prosecuting. Its acts of war.

2) The President has continued the Bush Era policy, they can lock you up forever without due process or a writ of Habeus Corpus.

If you think the President lacks authority to imprison captured enemies in war time, then you are mistaken. If you think habeas corpus applies to captured enemies held in time of war, you have to think again

3) The Department of Homeland Security has purchased billions of rounds of Hollow Point Ammunition, which is only useful (but very destructive) against civilian targets, since it cannot penetrate even the weakest armor.

I am not sure the rounds they purchased were hollow points. I am pretty suspicious of the effort to buy up the supply of ammunition either way, though.

4) They are looking to slowly confiscate all guns.

I am also not sure about the broad scope of that statement, but they do seem intent on by-passing the 2nd Amendment and curtailing our rights to gun ownership, generally.

5) Republicans have been testing of the boundaries of the first Amendment with their Abortion legislation.

I have no notion of what that means. Abortion is not a First Amendment issue.

The Right is looking to heavily restrict your First Amendment, Repeat, The Right is looking to heavily restrict your First Amendment.

Nonsense. If any side of the political spectrum seeks to limit free speech, it is the left.

Once the Supreme Court makes a ruling about abortion and religious freedom (legislating abortion based on religious values and convictions), they will apply those same boundaries to every other right in the first Amendment (speech/assembly/grievances/press).

Not trying to be rude, but that set of thoughts is disjointed and indecipherable. The Court doesn't legislate anything. Well, they DID with Roe v. Wade, but it's not what they generally do. And there is NO reason to think that they have used religious values to set any boundaries or that they would eek to do so with regard to any part of the First Amendment.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendment have been long dead.

While that's a bit over-wrought, I do think there's some merit to the concern over the ongoing validity of the 9th and 10th Amendments.

So would you mind telling me, which Right from the Bill of the Rights we are actually able to enjoy these days?

Almost all of them.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Much as I find this President to be an idiot and a terrible calamity for America, I reject that first point. He merely authorized the targeting of certain specific enemies of America in time of war. And the fact that they happen to be citizens of America doesn't change his right --and his duty as CinC -- to go after our enemies. Thee is no warrant required to target an enemy in war time and due process doesn't apply, either. It's not a crime he's prosecuting. Its acts of war.

The United States has been at perpetual war for nearly a century now, with only brief and very strenuous period of peace. Also, once someone is a United States citizen, they do in fact have rights, rights that were put into our Constitution directly, just for tyrants that would try to use this excuse.

Allow me to introduce to you, Article 3, Section 3, of the United States Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

At the very least there should be a special Court, that warrants the President's act, with two witnesses, whatever those witnesses are.

2) The President has continued the Bush Era policy, they can lock you up forever without due process or a writ of Habeus Corpus.

The same argument applies for United States citizens in this regard.


3) You can research the Hollow Point Ammunition issue on your own, I can assure you, with a simple internet google search, that this will be confirmed.

4) They are looking to ban military grade or near military grade firearms, the types that would be used to resist them, and that are used in less than 1% of gun murders.

5) Abortion is a VERY CRITICAL first Amendment issue. It concerns the ability of Congress or state congress, to legislate laws based on religious values. Once these laws are challenged, and somehow upheld by the Supreme Court, they will have the boundaries they need to go out and restrict everything else covered under the first Amendment.

6) Glad you agree on the Ninth and Tenth


7) You are not enjoying your Bill of Rights are your own leisure. THE GOVERNMENT PERMITS YOU TO ENJOY WHAT YOU HAVE REMAINING.

The government is not supposed to PERMIT these rights. These are natural rights, beyond the infringement of both government and popular opinion themselves. And don't pull the "yelling Fire in crowded place" line.

 

[Caroljo]

He was to busy threatening the entire world..

With Us or Against Us - YouTube

So Al-Qaeda and the other terrorist groups to which he was referring to are the entire world? I really hope you find the on ramp to reality one day.

During the time Bush was in office, I was living overseas and traveling to numerous countries on several continents. Everyone (people of other countries) who spoke to me about Bush (and I was not the one who brought him up-too embarrassed by him to do so) was critical of him and spoke of how he was disliked by them and considered a threatening 'bully' to the entire world. This includes many of those whom we would like to consider our allies, such as the UK, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Austria, etc. Bush turned good diplomatic relations around the world into garbage. The current administration has gone a long, long way in restoring them, especially our recent secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton, who, like her husband, is greatly admired around the world. You may like to think that it isn't important what 'they' think, but it is. Diplomatic relations around the world are extremely important. Extremely. We can't just go pushing everyone around; we need to be respected and liked.

Woodward did good things in the past, but his ego is out of control, and he has become someone more interested in self promotion than truth. A good journalist is not supposed to be 'the story,' and he likes to be part of 'the story.'

Just as i would expect...Woodward was good when he called out Bush, but now he's not that he's calling out Obama. Typical liberal bullshit.....

 

[Synthaholic]

Bob Woodward on threat from White House staff: "?it makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters, you're going to regret doing something that you believe in" ? CNN Press Room - CNN.com Blogs

Is this 1973? How Nixonian. Wow! I thought the Left loved Woodward. Bob Woodward ought to look how the Left is betraying him while he holds to his Journalism principals.

Where would you ever get that idea? He called himself a Republican in "All The President's Men". Bernstein was/is the Democrat.

 

[Caroljo]

Don't recall the Bush White House threatening Woodward when he was critical of him.

He was to busy threatening the entire world..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-23kmhc3P8U]With Us or Against Us - YouTube[/ame]

Were they all lying "TOO"?


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
* * President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
* * President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
* * Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
* * Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
* * Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
* * Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
* * Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
* * Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
* * Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
* * Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
* * Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
* * Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
* * Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
* * Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
* * Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
* * Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
* * Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
* * Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Hmmmm....you posted this last night and no response yet...Lol! Nobody ever responds to these, they can't admit their side would agree with the right in anything....

 

[Caroljo]

Bob Woodward on threat from White House staff: "?it makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters, you're going to regret doing something that you believe in" ? CNN Press Room - CNN.com Blogs

Is this 1973? How Nixonian. Wow! I thought the Left loved Woodward. Bob Woodward ought to look how the Left is betraying him while he holds to his Journalism principals.

Why would the left love Bob Woodward? Bob Woodward has no Journalistic principals.

Yeah, he was only instrumental in exposing a corrupt president...

And now he's instrumental in exposing another.....

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Much as I find this President to be an idiot and a terrible calamity for America, I reject that first point. He merely authorized the targeting of certain specific enemies of America in time of war. And the fact that they happen to be citizens of America doesn't change his right --and his duty as CinC -- to go after our enemies. Thee is no warrant required to target an enemy in war time and due process doesn't apply, either. It's not a crime he's prosecuting. Its acts of war.

The United States has been at perpetual war for nearly a century now, with only brief and very strenuous period of peace. Also, once someone is a United States citizen, they do in fact have rights, rights that were put into our Constitution directly, just for tyrants that would try to use this excuse.

Allow me to introduce to you, Article 3, Section 3, of the United States Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

At the very least there should be a special Court, that warrants the President's act, with two witnesses, whatever those witnesses are.

2) The President has continued the Bush Era policy, they can lock you up forever without due process or a writ of Habeus Corpus.

The same argument applies for United States citizens in this regard.


3) You can research the Hollow Point Ammunition issue on your own, I can assure you, with a simple internet google search, that this will be confirmed.

4) They are looking to ban military grade or near military grade firearms, the types that would be used to resist them, and that are used in less than 1% of gun murders.

5) Abortion is a VERY CRITICAL first Amendment issue. It concerns the ability of Congress or state congress, to legislate laws based on religious values. Once these laws are challenged, and somehow upheld by the Supreme Court, they will have the boundaries they need to go out and restrict everything else covered under the first Amendment.

6) Glad you agree on the Ninth and Tenth


7) You are not enjoying your Bill of Rights are your own leisure. THE GOVERNMENT PERMITS YOU TO ENJOY WHAT YOU HAVE REMAINING.

The government is not supposed to PERMIT these rights. These are natural rights, beyond the infringement of both government and popular opinion themselves. And don't pull the "yelling Fire in crowded place" line.

Almost entirely unpersuasive.

I will check (at some point) on the hollow point bullets claim.

The rest of your polemic is really insubstantial,

 

[Caroljo]

Woodward is a doofus, but struggling to remain relevant.

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

Woodward is a very smart man...and i think you're just a little worried because he IS very influential...
He's digging into Obama, and he's going to take him down one way or another. Especially since Obama's admin has threatened him. This could get exciting!!!!

 

[Caroljo]

BLITZER: Who sent that e-mail to you?
WOODWARD: Well, I'm not going to say.

Of course he's not going to say...it's his informer! He didn't give out Deep Throat's identity either....and he was right not to. You give out names, eventually nobody will trust you. Only common sense, which i doubt you have!

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Almost entirely unpersuasive.

I will check (at some point) on the hollow point bullets claim.

The rest of your polemic is really insubstantial,

Wait, are you saying that Article 3, Section 3, of the United States Constitution is insubstantial? Are you denying its existence?