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

[NYcarbineer]

Yes I know the 'nuts here don't care about the facts but let's review the actual quote:

"But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about 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..."

Only among the brain diseased from the land of the inbred does that qualify as a threat.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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?

I said no such thing. Nothing I have said implies any such thing, either.

YOU, however, offer rhetoric which is totally unpersuasive and insubstantial.

Being tried for the CRIME of treason is not the same thing as being targeted or captured as an enemy in time of war.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

l.

Being tried for the CRIME of treason is not the same thing as being targeted or captured as an enemy in time of war.

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.

Apparently, Article 3, Section 3, says that treason is Levying War against the United States. Thus, at the very least, if the President wants to kill an American Citizen with a predator drone, a special court should warrant it first, based on at least two different witnesses/documents proving the case. This would also allow it to be subject to Congressional review AFTERWORDS, you know, this system of checks and balances.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Here’s the key part of Sperling’s email:

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.

And Woodward’s response:

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

The complete emails are here:

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

Its a non-story.

 

[PredFan]

Oh look, lefties showing only parts of the e-mails and claiming that it means something. Typical.

 

[Polk]

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.)

The email did use the word "regret". I was referring to "this", since the poster I was responding to asked where the direct quote was.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

l.

Being tried for the CRIME of treason is not the same thing as being targeted or captured as an enemy in time of war.

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.

Apparently, Article 3, Section 3, says that treason is Levying War against the United States. Thus, at the very least, if the President wants to kill an American Citizen with a predator drone, a special court should warrant it first, based on at least two different witnesses/documents proving the case. This would also allow it to be subject to Congressional review AFTERWORDS, you know, this system of checks and balances.

You do tend to be overly simplistic.

If you get arrested and prosecuted for treason, you get --say it with me class:

all the benefits of you Constitutional protections including a jury trial, due process, a lawyer, etc.

HOWEVER, if you happen to be captured as an enemy, you may not get "tried." You may get held as a prisoner of war. That's been known to happen. Nowadays, the folks being detained at GITMO don't get called POWS, but the label is not controlling.

Alternatively, as an enemy in time of war, sometimes you just get killed in action.

No opposing soldier has EVER had a right to demand due process in getting killed on the battlefield. The concept simply has NO application.

What you actually know about the concepts you spout about could barely fill the dimple at the end of a thimble.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.)

The email did use the word "regret". I was referring to "this", since the poster I was responding to asked where the direct quote was.

I know. I got it. I was actually jut kind of (forgive me) agreeing with you.

I think this whole "you're gonna regret it" scandal is a bogus side show. I mistrust this White House. But even so, I have changed my opinion about what this particular e-mail meant. There is no "there" there.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Wait, so you are saying that there shouldn't even be a special federal court, that congress can review afterwards, that warrants these actions against United States citizens? That there should be no check at all?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Wait, so you are saying that there shouldn't even be a special federal court, that congress can review afterwards, that warrants these actions against United States citizens? That there should be no check at all?

Wait. Try to make your "questions" clear.

It is often helpful to quote the person whose post you are responding to. It gives the readers a clue about who you are talking to and about what you are trying to discuss. Going out on a limb, here, I venture the guess that you are attempting to respond to a post I offered.

If a scumbag happens to get hit by drone strike up his ass while he's waging jihad against the Great Satan, what Court do you imagine would have to have any jurisdiction and to come to grips with WHAT dispute exactly?

I happen to be a big supporter of checks and balances. But the concept doesn't apply to every piddling thing that takes place. For the violation of every right there ought to be a remedy; and for every remedy there ought to be a corresponding right. But that doesn't mean that every complaint or quarrel has a court with jurisdiction to entertain it. Some things are simply beyond the competency of a Court.

If the President happens to be in the middle of a war and elects option "A" over option "B," that might well mean that some people someplace are going to suddenly BE the front line. SOME people are probably going to get killed. Maybe even soldiers fighting on OUR side. Do you think they have some special "right" to challenge the President's choice in a Court of Law? What jurisdiction does a Court have to second guess the military determination of the Commander in Chief in time of war? Is it spelled out in one of the invisible ink sections of the Constitution? Or is it one of the many thing in life which are simply NOT justiciable?

 

[Mustang]

What was the threat?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So you and I will have to agree to disagree then. I sincerely believe that they should be a judicial check and a congressional check. The congressional check only reviews the decision AFTER it was made, the judicial check reviews the decision BEFORE it is made.

You and I are going to need each other in the end, since we both know how important the 2nd Amendment is. So let us try not to argue any further.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

So you and I will have to agree to disagree then. I sincerely believe that they should be a judicial check and a congressional check. The congressional check only reviews the decision AFTER it was made, the judicial check reviews the decision BEFORE it is made.

You and I are going to need each other in the end, since we both know how important the 2nd Amendment is. So let us try not to argue any further.

Disagreement can also be healthy. I agree that there should be checks and balances on much of what each Branch does. But I also believe that the Judicial Branch is not the right one to be checking on some of the Executive Branch's determinations over SOME matters.

I (let me guess that you and I disagree on this one, too) happen to support the USA PATRIOT Act. But I have no qualms at all about a special court being created to monitor the Executive. I fully endorse the Legislative Branch keeping the Executive in check on that, too.

If the President ha some legitimate ground to put a US citizen on a list for an upcoming drone strike, I FULLY agree with you that such power is awesome and dangerous. And I WANT there to be close scrutiny over it. I think a Congressional standing committee, or sub-committee and maybe some hearings and a duty of disclosure being placed on the President is viable and maybe even essential. But I am not sure a Court has the Constitutional ability to monitor such things.

 

[Synthaholic]

Atlantic columnist Jeffrey Goldberg, who deals with the White House frequently, told POLITICO. "The whole thing seems like a tempest in a teapot."

"When people say that sort of thing to me, I don't take it as a veiled threat. I don't take it as a person saying there will be consequences if you write that," he said. "I take it to mean, 'You shouldn't go down that road, because you'll be embarrassed when you find it it's wrong.' That, or they're trying to wave you off the story."

 

[Synthaholic]

"If this is it, I think many reporters — and I covered the White House for four years — received emails like this," Fox News host Bret Baier said on Andrea Tantaro's radio show today. "It was a cordial exchange for the most part, and Sperling is actually apologizing for a heated telephone conversation they had earlier in the day."

"I’m not sure that characterizing it as a threat -- I think Bob Woodward has a little bit of explaining to do about that characterization.”

 

[EriktheRed]

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.

 

[rdean]

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

Indeed...

Maybe it was Gawd.

 

[rdean]

"If this is it, I think many reporters — and I covered the White House for four years — received emails like this," Fox News host Bret Baier said on Andrea Tantaro's radio show today. "It was a cordial exchange for the most part, and Sperling is actually apologizing for a heated telephone conversation they had earlier in the day."

"I’m not sure that characterizing it as a threat -- I think Bob Woodward has a little bit of explaining to do about that characterization.”

Since Fox has lost so many, he may be jockeying for position.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The media has no balls they'll allow obama to piss, shit and slap them as many times as he wants. And they'll say nothing.

 

[thereisnospoon]

LOLz

Yeah American Pravda is going to turn against their Ossiah

LOLz

The Post is constantly cheerleading for the right.

The WashPO....?... Are you on drugs?