Obama White House Threatens Reporter

[G.T.]

Of course, this proves the OP a liar as well.

She added an exclamation point, all on her own, but placed it inside of the quotation.

How honest the indian.

 

[G.T.]

Amd inm case anyone found him credible in saying he felt threatened, here was his email response to that email:

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


so...yea.

 

[S.J.]

A. Fox "news" is not a credible news source
B. Woodward's "threat" has been debunked. Where is the proof of this other joker?

Yeah, I figured one of you Obama suck-ups would attack the source. Typical. How many others would you like?

White House threats: Democrat Lanny Davis says he was threatened, too - Knoxville Politics | Examiner.com

Lanny Davis: White House Threatened Me Too | RealClearPolitics

Lanny Davis: Yeah, the White House threatened me too | The Daily Caller

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Why did Woodward change his story when he got on fux?

Was he lying before or is he lying now?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Not much integrity in this thread.

Here's the big "threat" you freaks.

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

No, that would be the APOLOGY for the threat.

 

[Seawytch]

Not much integrity in this thread.

Here's the big "threat" you freaks.

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

No, that would be the APOLOGY for the threat.

Did you not read the email? The "threat" he implied on Hannity was in the apology email.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Did you not read the email? The "threat" he implied on Hannity was in the apology email.

I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today.

Try again, Comrade.

 

[Seawytch]

Did you not read the email? The "threat" he implied on Hannity was in the apology email.

I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today.

Try again, Comrade.

You need to watch Woodward talking about the "threat". He quoted the fucking email, douchrade.

 

[EriktheRed]

This morn, Bob Woodward referred to the Obama claim that he wouldn't send some ships to the Gulf due to impending budget cuts he would be 'forced' to make.

Woodward flat out said that this was "madness" (his word!)

Woodward said Reagan nor any other President would fail to protect the nation using a political ploy.

"The Washington Post's Bob Woodward ripped into President Barack Obama on "Morning Joe" today, saying he's exhibiting 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."

Read more: Bob Woodward: Obama's Sequester 'Madness' - Business Insider





Later....the White House emailed Woodward, threatening him....."you'll regret this!"

 

[Uncensored2008]

You need to watch Woodward talking about the "threat". He quoted the fucking email, douchrade.

The spin that you drones are repeating is clearly an apology for an earlier exchange, fuckwad.

 

[G.T.]

uncensored,

he mentions the exact words in this email when he's talking about where he was threatened. specifically the "regret it" part of the email, is where he's implying there was a "threat."

he's doing so explicitly - verbatim from this email that you're saying he's not. Try listening to him.

 

[Caroljo]

right wingers be weary of this guy, let me give you a first hand experience.

Im a hard core Democrat, always will be. During Bush II's stint in the WH Woodward promised a book that was going to slam Bush II and his cronies. This book was red meat for any Bush II hatin Democrat, which certainly was me.

So, I bought the book. OMG, maybe the only book I ever wanted to take back and bitch slap the author in the face for wasting my time. What a waste of paper.

I have a feeling hes now ready to tap into the anti Obama conservative media money maker. Just my 0.02.

What's the matter? You're pissed because Woodward didn't give you enough juicy lies about Bush? Are you mad because he couldn't find anything to ruin Bush for life? Now you're afraid Woodward is going to show everyone what a criminal your president is!!! Lol!

 

[Seawytch]

uncensored,

he mentions the exact words in this email when he's talking about where he was threatened. specifically the "regret it" part of the email, is where he's implying there was a "threat."

he's doing so explicitly - verbatim from this email that you're saying he's not. Try listening to him.

Otherwise him talking about a threat in a phone call would be unverifiable hearsay.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Otherwise him talking about a threat in a phone call would be unverifiable hearsay.

Which would matter if he launched a libel suit - otherwise is meaningless.

 

[Seawytch]

Otherwise him talking about a threat in a phone call would be unverifiable hearsay.

Which would matter if he launched a libel suit - otherwise is meaningless.

It's not meaningless. He was claiming the threat was in the email, not the phone call which would be a ridiculous claim because he would have had no proof. He was talking about the email...which clearly wasn't a threat.

Tell me you aren't still trying to claim the threat he alleged on Hannity was in the call.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's not meaningless. He was claiming the threat was in the email, not the phone call which would be a ridiculous claim because he would have had no proof. He was talking about the email...which clearly wasn't a threat.

Tell me you aren't still trying to claim the threat he alleged on Hannity was in the call.

I'm not claiming anything, since I'm not Bob Woodward.

I am noting that the emails the hate sites published for you drones to post, is an apology for an earlier confrontation, thus I have no reason to subscribe to the leftist spin.

 

[skye]

This Obama Administration is a bunch of thugs!

As simple as that.

 

[Seawytch]

It's not meaningless. He was claiming the threat was in the email, not the phone call which would be a ridiculous claim because he would have had no proof. He was talking about the email...which clearly wasn't a threat.

Tell me you aren't still trying to claim the threat he alleged on Hannity was in the call.

I'm not claiming anything, since I'm not Bob Woodward.

I am noting that the emails the hate sites published for you drones to post, is an apology for an earlier confrontation, thus I have no reason to subscribe to the leftist spin.

Ah, another hopeless ODS case that bought into the "threat" myth.

Woodward never claimed the "threat" that wasn't a threat, came from a phone call. You made that up to excuse the fact that y'all fell for it once the actual email was released.

 

[Seawytch]

This Obama Administration is a bunch of thugs!

As simple as that.

Only to the very simple minded.

 

[Intense]

This Obama Administration is a bunch of thugs!

As simple as that.

Chicago Politics. Happens Everyday.