Cracks: Obama Admin threatens Bob Woodward

[_Droopy]

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

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

A White House official said that “no threat was intended” by Mr Sperling’s email to Woodward. “The note suggested that Mr Woodward would regret the observation he made regarding the sequester because that observation was inaccurate, nothing more,” said the official.

That's right. The weasel words here are absolutely precious. Classic. Your cult leader or one of his loyal servants has spoken. You now have the official party line. Repeat it. Over and over. They deny the allegations. Is not the party always right? The party is infallible. Would Barack Hussein Obama (Mmm, mmm, mmm!) ever lie? Would your Lord and Savior deceive you?

In any case, Woodward is no conservative, and we now have a second witness to such behavior. This kind of political thuggishness is already a well established aspect of this administration, and is nothing more than a transplant to Washington, an already bare-knuckles political town, of the shady, bottom-feeding political style of Chicago machine politics.

And Alinskyite revolution.

[_beastie]

droopy,

Please point out the words that constitute the threat. I provided the emails. How hard can it be?

[_krose]

That's really pathetic.

Put up or shut up.

[_Kevin Graham]

Hey now, FOX News and the rest of the Right Wing propaganda machine, told him there was a threat. So there was a threat. Period. That's all Droopy needs to know.

You can't someone who has so much contempt for education, to be expected to exercise a little critical thought or intellectual honesty. Droopy has been and always will be a dogmatic zealot of the worst kind. Evidence is just a nuisance to his worldview. You can't really expect him to engage with it.

[_Tarski]

Let's say that Droopy tried to talk his friend out of friend out of writing a book designed to show that President Hinkley was maliciously deceptive on the Larry King show.
After a long argument where he loses his temper a bit he sends a friendly letter saying that he just feels that GBH was a good man and that he (his friend) would later regret writing the nasty book. He includes phrases like "I'm sorry..." and "As a friend...."
This is about regret in the sense of thinking better about it later. This would not have been a threat of violence or retribution at all now would it?


Now go read the actual emails!!! That is no threat!!

Excerpt:

"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......."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/e ... z2MJVqkJwj

[_krose]

droopy,

Please point out the words that constitute the threat. I provided the emails. How hard can it be?

Maybe this is what he is referring to:

The presidential press secretary, Ari Fleischer, condemned Bill Maher's irreverent comic response to 9/11 by reminding "all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do."

He's just a decade or so late.

[_ajax18]

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

Undoubtedly. It'd be satisfying to watch our first undocumented president take their social security and send it south of the border.

If you don't let me keep increasing the rate of spending, I'm going to release all the illegal immigrants. Like he hasn't already?

[_beastie]

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

Undoubtedly. It'd be satisfying to watch our first undocumented president take their social security and send it south of the border.

If you don't let me keep increasing the rate of spending, I'm going to release all the illegal immigrants. Like he hasn't already?

First hand evidence of what is causing the problems with the republican party today.

There have always been fringe nuts on both sides of the political spectrum. But, in its attempts to court move evangelical voters, the republican party is suffering the unintended consequences of having those formerly on the fringe, annoying but relatively easy to ignore, become a dominant voice in the party overall.

And yes, ajax, I am calling you a fringe nut who has too much influence on today's republican party. Seriously, how can republican representatives be expected to compromise with a president that a large portion of their adherents think is an "undocumented president" going to take social security and "send it south of the border"???? It's just not possible.

It's tragic, actually. It's one thing when fringe nuts are on the sidelines, being nutty and somewhat entertaining, but it's quite another when they seem to have enough influence to actually affect the workings of the government. No longer entertaining.

[_ajax18]

And yes, ajax, I am calling you a fringe nut who has too much influence on today's republican party.

If I had influence, I'd get every liberal hand off my paycheck. I can't even hang on to what is mine. That's not influence. That's called being disenfranchised.

Me, having political influence? I don't think you know me very well.

[_Kevin Graham]

Woodward is pressed by Axlerod to address the "threat" and he admits there was no threat.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/0 ... 89206.html