Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well, now we know all of this is just a lot of horse shit. This Lanny person has zero credibility and even Woodward has admitted there was no threat. Let's move along folks; there's nothing to see here.
Except for the fact that people are jumping on a 'story' before they know all the facts. That's the modern media for you.
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!"
Woodward: White House Telling Reporters "You Will Regret Doing This" Makes Me "Very Uncomfortable" - YouTube
And now they are crucifying Woodward for exposing obama. It is so pathetic. And, on top of that, all the libs on this board are busy providing cover for the WH by "explaining" that Woodward is the bad guy. It's absolutely amazing to me that the asshole libs are chastising Woodward when they were the ones who were praising him when he brought down Nixon, among other things. POS, all of them.
E-mails are emerging that put a very different slant on this. The Whitehouse official was not 'threatening' Woodward. He was saying Woodward would regret publishing material that was not correct on the slant Woodward was giving it. He was telling Woodward he wasn't understanding the material and would regret, as a reporter, that he'd published material that was incorrect. It's kind of like this thread and the other one: people jumping to conclusions about something they don't have all the information on. The Whitehouse official was not warning or threatening Woodward that they were going to get some kind of revenge on him.
I think Woodward will regret that he went on television and talked to anyone who would listen about the Whitehouse trying to intimidate him. It is being proven through a series of e-mails that he was not threatened at all. Woodward has become an attention whore instead of a serious journalist.
These left-wing thugs in the current Administration, from the top down, need to be exposed for the scum they are.
It was clear long ago to those willing to see.
The others? Look at the contortions Obama supporters are going through in this thread, trying to defend the indefensible.
Remember this?
"Thuggery is unattractive. Ineffective thuggery even more so. Which may be one reason so many Americans have been reacting negatively to the response of Barack Obama and his administration to BP's Gulf oil spill.
Take Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's remark that he would keep his "boot on the neck" of BP, which brings to mind George Orwell's definition of totalitarianism as "a boot stamping on a human face forever." Except that Salazar's boot hasn't gotten much in the way of results yet.
Or consider Obama's undoubtedly carefully considered statement to Matt Lauer that he was consulting with experts "so I know whose ass to kick." Attacking others is a standard campaign tactic when you're in political trouble, and certainly BP, which appears to have taken unwise shortcuts in the Gulf, is an attractive target.
But you don't always win arguments that way. The Obama White House gleefully took on Dick Cheney on the issue of terrorist interrogations. It turned out that more Americans agreed with Cheney's stand, despite his low poll numbers, than Obama's.
Then there is Obama's decision to impose a six-month moratorium on deep-water oil drilling in the Gulf. This penalizes companies with better safety records than BP's and will result in many advanced drilling rigs being sent to offshore oil fields abroad.
The justification offered was an Interior Department report supposedly "peer reviewed" by "experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering."
But it turned out the drafts the experts saw didn't include any recommendation for a moratorium. Eight of the cited experts have said they oppose the moratorium as more economically devastating than the oil spill and "counterproductive" to safety."
Chicago Way Doesn't Work In Gulf Crisis - Investors.com
He's been a thug since he began....and the thug-ettes are lining up behind him.
And now they are crucifying Woodward for exposing obama. It is so pathetic. And, on top of that, all the libs on this board are busy providing cover for the WH by "explaining" that Woodward is the bad guy. It's absolutely amazing to me that the asshole libs are chastising Woodward when they were the ones who were praising him when he brought down Nixon, among other things. POS, all of them.
E-mails are emerging that put a very different slant on this. The Whitehouse official was not 'threatening' Woodward. He was saying Woodward would regret publishing material that was not correct on the slant Woodward was giving it. He was telling Woodward he wasn't understanding the material and would regret, as a reporter, that he'd published material that was incorrect. It's kind of like this thread and the other one: people jumping to conclusions about something they don't have all the information on. The Whitehouse official was not warning or threatening Woodward that they were going to get some kind of revenge on him.
I think Woodward will regret that he went on television and talked to anyone who would listen about the Whitehouse trying to intimidate him. It is being proven through a series of e-mails that he was not threatened at all. Woodward has become an attention whore instead of a serious journalist.
Sounds very similar to when these efforts to try and "downgrade" the video protest surrounding the Benghazi attack that left four Americans dead. It was a terrorist attack, when it became apparent no one was really buying into this massive organized protest story.
These left-wing thugs in the current Administration, from the top down, need to be exposed for the scum they are.
It was clear long ago to those willing to see.
The others? Look at the contortions Obama supporters are going through in this thread, trying to defend the indefensible.
Remember this?
"Thuggery is unattractive. Ineffective thuggery even more so. Which may be one reason so many Americans have been reacting negatively to the response of Barack Obama and his administration to BP's Gulf oil spill.
Take Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's remark that he would keep his "boot on the neck" of BP, which brings to mind George Orwell's definition of totalitarianism as "a boot stamping on a human face forever." Except that Salazar's boot hasn't gotten much in the way of results yet.
Or consider Obama's undoubtedly carefully considered statement to Matt Lauer that he was consulting with experts "so I know whose ass to kick." Attacking others is a standard campaign tactic when you're in political trouble, and certainly BP, which appears to have taken unwise shortcuts in the Gulf, is an attractive target.
But you don't always win arguments that way. The Obama White House gleefully took on Dick Cheney on the issue of terrorist interrogations. It turned out that more Americans agreed with Cheney's stand, despite his low poll numbers, than Obama's.
Then there is Obama's decision to impose a six-month moratorium on deep-water oil drilling in the Gulf. This penalizes companies with better safety records than BP's and will result in many advanced drilling rigs being sent to offshore oil fields abroad.
The justification offered was an Interior Department report supposedly "peer reviewed" by "experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering."
But it turned out the drafts the experts saw didn't include any recommendation for a moratorium. Eight of the cited experts have said they oppose the moratorium as more economically devastating than the oil spill and "counterproductive" to safety."
Chicago Way Doesn't Work In Gulf Crisis - Investors.com
He's been a thug since he began....and the thug-ettes are lining up behind him.
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!"
Woodward: White House Telling Reporters "You Will Regret Doing This" Makes Me "Very Uncomfortable" - YouTube
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.
Read more: Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed - Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei - POLITICO.com
The only thing Bob Woodward is truly threatened by are the words "Bob who?"
These left-wing thugs in the current Administration, from the top down, need to be exposed for the scum they are.
It was clear long ago to those willing to see.
The others? Look at the contortions Obama supporters are going through in this thread, trying to defend the indefensible.
Remember this?
"Thuggery is unattractive. Ineffective thuggery even more so. Which may be one reason so many Americans have been reacting negatively to the response of Barack Obama and his administration to BP's Gulf oil spill.
Take Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's remark that he would keep his "boot on the neck" of BP, which brings to mind George Orwell's definition of totalitarianism as "a boot stamping on a human face forever." Except that Salazar's boot hasn't gotten much in the way of results yet.
Or consider Obama's undoubtedly carefully considered statement to Matt Lauer that he was consulting with experts "so I know whose ass to kick." Attacking others is a standard campaign tactic when you're in political trouble, and certainly BP, which appears to have taken unwise shortcuts in the Gulf, is an attractive target.
But you don't always win arguments that way. The Obama White House gleefully took on Dick Cheney on the issue of terrorist interrogations. It turned out that more Americans agreed with Cheney's stand, despite his low poll numbers, than Obama's.
Then there is Obama's decision to impose a six-month moratorium on deep-water oil drilling in the Gulf. This penalizes companies with better safety records than BP's and will result in many advanced drilling rigs being sent to offshore oil fields abroad.
The justification offered was an Interior Department report supposedly "peer reviewed" by "experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering."
But it turned out the drafts the experts saw didn't include any recommendation for a moratorium. Eight of the cited experts have said they oppose the moratorium as more economically devastating than the oil spill and "counterproductive" to safety."
Chicago Way Doesn't Work In Gulf Crisis - Investors.com
He's been a thug since he began....and the thug-ettes are lining up behind him.
now that's funny. that's a joke right? it has to be. Obama is leaps and bounds better than any GOP knuckledragger we have seen in 40 years.
Lets not forget, under Obama we were not losing 800k jobs a Fing month. Did you forget that already?
I fail to see how households earning less than they have been (by over 8%) since 2007, and that this nation has seen more PART time work than any other moment in recorded history, is a vast improvement. Add to that the devaluing of the US dollar, by having the treasury print more currency in response to an added $6 trillion in debt, were IS this economic improvement exactly?
First off you are in fantasy land. The Dollar has been ticking up when compared to currencies world wide. Which means it's getting stronger. So, where exactly is it "devalued"?
Second off..since when do you folks care what people earn? You've done everything possible to drive wages down. You really should be happy about this.
No matter how you measure it, the dollar is losing value over the long-term. Here's why:
1. The U.S. debt is more than $16 trillion. Foreign holders of this debt are concerned that the U.S. will let the dollar value decline so the relative value of its debt is less.
2. The large debt could force the U.S. to raise taxes to pay it off, which would slow economic growth.
3. As more countries join or trade with the European Union, demand for the euro increases.
4. Foreign investors are diversifying their portfolios with more non-dollar denominated assets.
5. As the dollar loses value, investors are less likely to hold assets in dollars as they wait for the decline to stop.
Under Obama, the Dollar Value Compared to Euro:
2012 - The dollar lost value against the euro, as it appeared the eurozone crisis was being managed. By the end of 2012, the euro was worth $1.3186.
2011 - The dollar's value against the euro fell 10%, then regained ground. As of December 30, 2011, the euro was worth $1.2973.
2010 - The Greece debt crisis strengthened the dollar. By year end, the euro was only worth $1.32.
2009 - The dollar fell 20% thanks to debt fears. By December, the euro was worth $1.43.
The only thing Bob Woodward is truly threatened by are the words "Bob who?"
daveweigel ‏@daveweigel Current GOP message: As Bob Woodward proved, Obama invented the disastrous sequestration. Also, sequestration isn't all that bad.
I've been hearing about threats from the WH since his first year in office.
This has been going on all along. Anyone who rats him out is made an example. I've been told by soldiers that they are under direct orders never to be critical of Obama. They'll get punished under UCMJ.
I've been hearing about threats from the WH since his first year in office.
This has been going on all along. Anyone who rats him out is made an example. I've been told by soldiers that they are under direct orders never to be critical of Obama. They'll get punished under UCMJ.
Um...hasn't that applied to all soldiers with all CinCs?
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!"
Woodward: White House Telling Reporters "You Will Regret Doing This" Makes Me "Very Uncomfortable" - YouTube
And now they are crucifying Woodward for exposing obama. It is so pathetic. And, on top of that, all the libs on this board are busy providing cover for the WH by "explaining" that Woodward is the bad guy. It's absolutely amazing to me that the asshole libs are chastising Woodward when they were the ones who were praising him when he brought down Nixon, among other things. POS, all of them.
E-mails are emerging that put a very different slant on this. The Whitehouse official was not 'threatening' Woodward. He was saying Woodward would regret publishing material that was not correct on the slant Woodward was giving it. He was telling Woodward he wasn't understanding the material and would regret, as a reporter, that he'd published material that was incorrect. It's kind of like this thread and the other one: people jumping to conclusions about something they don't have all the information on. The Whitehouse official was not warning or threatening Woodward that they were going to get some kind of revenge on him.
I think Woodward will regret that he went on television and talked to anyone who would listen about the Whitehouse trying to intimidate him. It is being proven through a series of e-mails that he was not threatened at all. Woodward has become an attention whore instead of a serious journalist.
