Bob Woodward Threatened by Someone in the WH?

[mini me]

So, back to the OP. No one seems to care that a White House staffer may be threatening, or attempting to coerce, a journalist? Seems a bit Nixon-esque to me, but maybe that's acceptable now?

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by mini me

So, back to the OP. No one seems to care that a White House staffer may be threatening, or attempting to coerce, a journalist? Seems a bit Nixon-esque to me, but maybe that's acceptable now?

What are they going to threaten him with, Gitmo? Kneecapping? Treat Woodward like a mushroom, like all politicians do? Does everyone on the right wear tin foil hats?

[bobabode]

PS Bob Woodward is sounding like a whiney little beotch. The worst that can happen to him is that they pull his White House press credentials and tell him to eff off and not return his calls. If he doesn't like it he can go file an FOIA and get in line with the rest of the paranoid and lazy press corp.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by bobabode

PS Bob Woodward is sounding like a whiney little beotch. The worst that can happen to him is that they pull his White House press credentials and tell him to eff off and not return his calls. If he doesn't like it he can go file an FOIA and get in line with the rest of the paranoid and lazy press corp.

Here Woodward is not whining.....he is exposing.

The white House has overplayed the house is on fire alarm and is obviously rattled by a credible critic.

[merrylander]

So pray tell exactly how does one lead a herd of cats? Inquiring minds want to know.

[mini me]

Originally Posted by bobabode

PS Bob Woodward is sounding like a whiney little beotch. The worst that can happen to him is that they pull his White House press credentials and tell him to eff off and not return his calls. If he doesn't like it he can go file an FOIA and get in line with the rest of the paranoid and lazy press corp.

OK, so I guess this is vote number one in favor of the WH's treatment of Woodward. Anyone else?

[Dondilion]

The latest: The White House realising that there is no winning jousting with Bob is claiming that the "threat" is a terrible misunderstanding.

Very smart of them!

This guy has huge credibility with Dems and Independents.

[finnbow]

Lest we get ahead of ourselves in believing the White House threatened Woodward, the text of the offending emails has been obtained by Politico. Not exactly threatening in my book:

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 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

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

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...led-88226.html

Not exactly a gun to the head.

[BlueStreak]

Well, is there anything new about wingnuts getting wound up over sound bites taken out of context? "You didn't build that....." anyone?

Dave

[mini me]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Lest we get ahead of ourselves in believing the White House threatened Woodward, the text of the offending emails has been obtained by Politico. Not exactly threatening in my book:

Not exactly a gun to the head.

Well, posting the email out of context might do a disservice to the entirety of the exchange between Woodward and Sperling. It seemed like a threat to Woodward, who was present and participated in both the phone discussion and the email exchange.

From the article: 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.’”

Besides, it looks like it has happened more than once. Where there's smoke...

http://www.wmal.com/common/page.php?...8924&is_corp=0