DiscussMormonism.com

"Woodward said Obama was showing 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."

considering this guy cut his teeth on Nixon, that is saying a lot...but to be fair, Obama's ineptitude is often confused for being madness.

He'd regret lying and making an ass of himself? That's not a threat but a fact.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ngton.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/bob-wood ... ion-2013-2

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/27/bob_woo ... eadership/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/us/po ... d=all&_r=0

"Woodward said Obama was showing 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."

Madness? Really?

This unwarranted level of hyperbole, coupled with his recent paranoia, makes me suspect that Woodward is having some sort of psychotic episode (either that or he's being possessed by Glenn Beck). Maybe a family intervention is in order. I'm actually a bit worried about him.

Politico's Woodward Warmongering

"Woodward at war," was the headline Politico's Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei attached to their February 27 article playing up Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward's claim that a senior White House official had threatened him over email regarding Woodward's reporting on the origins of the budget sequestration. The Politico report on Woodward's "major-league brushback" caught fire in the press and prompted allegations of White House intimidation. However, the email chain -- which Politico published the following morning -- shows that the claims of threats and intimidation by the White House are, at best, wildly overblown, and that Politico helped hype a bogus allegation by Woodward absent the full context.

The original February 27 Politico piece featured a short clip of Allen and VandeHei's "hourlong interview" with Woodward "around the Georgetown dining room table where so many generations of Washington's powerful have spilled their secrets." In that clip, Woodward reads from an email he received from a top White House official, later revealed to be economic advisor Gene Sperling. As Woodward puts it, Sperling did "something that I think it is important for people to understand. He says, you know, 'I think you will regret staking out that claim,'" referring to Woodward's assertion that the president was "moving the goal posts" in negotiations to avert sequestration.

Allen and VandeHei wrote:

Woodward repeated the last sentence, making clear he saw it as a veiled threat. " 'You'll regret.' Come on," he said. "I think if Obama himself saw the way they're dealing with some of this, he would say, 'Whoa, we don't tell any reporter 'you're going to regret challenging us.'"

"They have to be willing to live in the world where they're challenged," Woodward continued in his calm, instantly recognizable voice. "I've tangled with lots of these people. But suppose there's a young reporter who's only had a couple of years -- or 10 years' -- experience and the White House is sending him an email saying, 'You're going to regret this.' You know, tremble, tremble. I don't think it's the way to operate."

It's not clear whether Allen or VandeHei had access to Woodward's full email exchange with Woodward -- as they put it, Woodward "[dug] into one of his famous folders" to read the offending excerpts to them, meaning that at the very least they had the opportunity to demand to see more from that exchange before publishing Woodward's claims. From all appearances, though, Allen and VandeHei's initial reporting on the email exchange was based solely on what Woodward told them about it. Their "exclusive" follow-up article on the email exchange indicates as much: "POLITICO's 'Behind the Curtain' column last night quoted Bob Woodward as saying that a senior White House official has told him in an email he would 'regret' questioning White House statements on the origins of sequestration."

The emails reproduced in that article, however, don't support the idea that Sperling had leveled a threat at Woodward, or that Woodward himself felt threatened by Sperling. In his email to Woodward, Sperling apologizes for "raising my voice in our conversation today," writing: "But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that President 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." Woodward excised that highlighted portion when he read the email to Allen and VandeHei.

After laying out the administration case on the sequestration wrangling, Sperling concludes:

I agree there are more than one side to our first disagreement, but again think this latter issue is different. 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.

Then there's Woodward's response to Sperling, which pretty well debunks the notion that Woodward felt threatened at the time:

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.

VandeHei himself went on MSNBC's Morning Joe the morning after writing the "Woodward at war" article and downplayed Woodward's allegations. "My take on it, I've been doing this for 20 years," VandeHei said. "I find press secretaries, it's their job to get in our face, it's their job to intimidate. It's our job to brush it aside and just write what we need to write and not really care if someone in the White House is huffing and puffing." After co-host Mika Brzezinski pointed out that "the word 'threat' is pretty serious," VandeHei laughed it off. "We get threatened all the time."

Given Vandehei's statements, it's unclear why Politico would breathlessly and uncritically hype Woodward's allegations in the first place.

This is an utterly bizarre incident. The revealed emails demonstrate quite clearly no threat was made. I can understand wingnuts like droopy and bcspace getting into a dither over absolutely nothing, but Woodward's behavior is at odds with his history.

krose wrote:

"Woodward said Obama was showing 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."

Madness? Really?

This unwarranted level of hyperbole, coupled with his recent paranoia, makes me suspect that Woodward is having some sort of psychotic episode (either that or he's being possessed by Glenn Beck). Maybe a family intervention is in order. I'm actually a bit worried about him.

Woodard is a committed man of the Left, and was key in bringing down Richard Nixon.

What you Morlocks simply will not admit to, possibly because doing so would expose you for what you really are, is that Barack Obama and much of his party is authoritarian to totalitarian in mentality. They are statist political thugs, blind drunk with their own power and self-importance, and will go anything to both stay in power and destroy anyone who threatens it.

Obama is the first true post-American president, and the Democrat party a post-American, post-constitutional party.

That, of course, is why folks like Graham, and Krose, and Tarski, and Beastie love them so very, very much.

They "get it."

beastie wrote:This is an utterly bizarre incident. The revealed emails demonstrate quite clearly no threat was made. I can understand wingnuts like droopy and bcspace getting into a dither over absolutely nothing, but Woodward's behavior is at odds with his history.

You guys can all stop prevaricating for your cult leader ( Mmm, mmm, mmm,) now. The evidence is already in:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... House.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02 ... -woodward/

http://www.businessinsider.com/bob-wood ... ics-2013-2

Oh, the White House is denying all the allegations. Well, fancy that. Now, of course, like all good little drones, we must all believe the official party line, mustn't we, because our Lord and Savior (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/ ... ord-savior), or one of his pet lap-poodles, has spoken.

Oh yeah, the threat is there, just as Woodward claimed. Drone on. Spin. Spin, spin, spin, spin, round and round and round we go, and where we stop?


Serfdom.

Please quote the threat. Thanks.

I'll even help you by providing the text of 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 President 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 Relief Society 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: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/e ... z2MFM0N9Hn

beastie wrote:Please quote the threat. Thanks.

LOL! This is typical Droopy when one of his precious attacks is exposed as stupid assertion. He gets upset about it and just starts with the usual fits of fury, asserting he is justified even if he is wrong, because we're all a bunch of (insert Glenn Beck's allegation of the week here) who worship that evil (insert ignorant adjective from Heritage here) Obama guy no matter what.

You have to sometimes wonder what it is that makes a man like Droopy do so many ridiculous things, and just get energized with every subsequent act of stupidity.