Thursday, February 28, 2013

Behind the Curtain: Bob Woodward at war -

   Things are truly testy in the Obama White House now that veteran political reporter and safe Bob Woodward is at war with them over how the sequester is being portrayed by the President.
     It's an unusual situation to have such a pillar of the MSM taking exception to this President.
      Fun to watch.
Behind the Curtain: Bob Woodward at war -


Anonymous said...

If by "unusual" you mean it has never ever ever ever ever happened befor then yes, you are correct.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure when the Obama machine told Woodward he will regret it, they didn't mean it as a threat. They were probably referring to the backlash he will get from the rest of the MSN for daring to speak a critical word of the chosen one.

Last night on Fox news (the only news I watch) I saw Obama once gain explain how we should pay down the deficit.

But the proper terminology is not to pay down deficits, instead, it is to "reduce" or eliminate them. We pay down "debt."

Q: Who is fiscally dumber, Obama or Cuomo?
A: they are both dumber.

Anonymous said...

I would hardly call it unusual for MSM to take exception with any president. It happens all the time. Why don't you put your bias against MSM behind you?

Anonymous said...

And what will all you Free$tuff lovers think of your great Anointed One when he starts cutting back on the handouts, but still gives out millions in foreign aid.

Anonymous said...

These are the actual emails. If Woodward has other emails he should release them. But from these emails' standpoint, there doesn’t appear to be a threat per say.

Sperling: “I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. 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 ... My apologies again for raising my voice on the call with you. Feel bad about that and truly apologize.”

Woodward: “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.”

So it appears not only was Sperling's email weighing more toward an apology than on “threats”, Woodward clearly interpreted it as such. Indeed, he said he "welcomed it."

The question:

What is more likely -- that he meant that he would regret saying what he said because it will all play out differently than he had anticipated?

Or, he will regret it because the White House is so threatened by what he's said they actually intend to hurt him in some way?


Just an FYI – I’m not sure if the full context has been posted yet.

And before everyone shouts... while I have my own opinion, I am not necessarily taking sides here. I am merely posting the facts of the email exchange as they become available... it goes without saying… feel free to interpret and keep opinions as desired.

Anonymous said...

Great post 2:05PM. And you are correct in pointing out the more likely scenario; why would the White House make blatant threats in the first place?

And why would Woodward goes running to other media outlets to claim he was the target of a White House “political attack.” The first of those outlets, the right leaning Politico, clearly failed to report the "as a friend" part of Sperling's email, nor did they mention Woodward's cheerful reply.

Woodward is beginning to look like a petty attention whore at this point. Again, thank you for providing additional and ‘unbiased’ information.

Anonymous said...

Don't be silly are taking sides here and your opinion is all but transparent.
The most likely regret is because he is sure to become a pariah amongst his fellow librul MSN hacks.

And try not to miss the point that the whole incident would not have taken place if it were a republican president being criticized by anyone from the MSN.

There would be no threat, veiled or otherwise. There would be no email and there would be long winded phone call, nor the yelling that went with it.

Dan Francis said...

He was NOT threatened - what he said was challenged and saying, "You'll be sorry for what you said," implies the words will come back to haunt him ... not a foot bath in cement...

You all need to get a grip. Even Woodward clarified the email that had the "threat..." of course that part is seldom reported ... why it that? Oh, that is not redmeat journalism, eh, Mr. and Mrs. Faux Gnus.

Anonymous said...

Fox is all over it today.they have some REAL news. This is d
good stuff.

Anonymous said...

Woodward has officially jumped the shark!

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but the e-mails I’ve read don't support ANY of Woodward's shifting claims. The e-mails from BOTH Sperling and Woodward are chatty and friendly. What happened to the "threat?" Where is this apocryphal "coded message" that the far right was so quick to jump on?

Anonymous said...

Bob Woodward: “I was threatened, well, not exactly threatened, that is to say, I felt threatened. I mean, I could have felt threatened. At first I didn't feel threatened, then I did, but I don't know why.”