Time to trash Bob Woodward

Something the Dog Said wrote: Yes, those terrible threats that Woodward claimed that the White House aide Sperling made. Just vicious language. No wonder conservatives are so upset.

Where did Woodward say there was "vicious language"?

Woodward did say that he called Sperling to tell him about his column, and that Sperling "yelled at me for about a half-hour". Then Sperling sent him the email where he apologized for raising his voice, so it seems clear Woodward was yelled at. Then Sperling goes further by using the words "you will regret".

First of all, why is the White House so thinned skinned about what Woodward wrote that they would yell at him? The main thing he wrote was that the sequestor was the White House's proposal, and has the White House specifically denied that? In the email Sperling seem most upset about Woodard saying Obama was "moving the goal post". That's just Woodward's opinion, and it seems pretty minor to me. But the White House seems to be having a fit over it.

So far as the using the word "regret" goes, I think Sperling used that word intentionally but tried to soften the impact. That's really not the word a White House official should be using with a reporter, softened or not, because it carries connotations. Why would Woodward "regret" anything? The word doesn't really fit any other way that I can see. But I'll agree it wasn't used with any horrible specific threat attached, it was left for your imagination to ponder over it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/woodward-at-war-88212.html?hp=t1_3

pineinthegrass wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Yes, those terrible threats that Woodward claimed that the White House aide Sperling made. Just vicious language. No wonder conservatives are so upset.

Where did Woodward say there was "vicious language"?

Woodward did say that he called Sperling to tell him about his column, and that Sperling "yelled at me for about a half-hour". Then Sperling sent him the email where he apologized for raising his voice, so it seems clear Woodward was yelled at. Then Sperling goes further by using the words "you will regret".

First of all, why is the White House so thinned skinned about what Woodward wrote that they would yell at him? The main thing he wrote was that the sequestor was the White House's proposal, and has the White House specifically denied that? In the email Sperling seem most upset about Woodard saying Obama was "moving the goal post". That's just Woodward's opinion, and it seems pretty minor to me. But the White House seems to be having a fit over it.

So far as the using the word "regret" goes, I think Sperling used that word intentionally but tried to soften the impact. That's really not the word a White House official should be using with a reporter, softened or not, because it carries connotations. Why would Woodward "regret" anything? The word doesn't really fit any other way that I can see. But I'll agree it wasn't used with any horrible specific threat attached, it was left for your imagination to ponder over it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/woodward-at-war-88212.html?hp=t1_3

Hmm, where did anyone say that Woodward complained about "vicious language"? That was my sarcastic editorial comment. Also, do you think it is honest to clip a phrase and use it out of context to misrepresent the statement that was being made, as you have with the phrase "you will regret". In context, it is clear that Sperling was not issuing a threat with that remark, but was saying as a friend, he believe that Woodward would have regrets about his statements.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Hmm, where did anyone say that Woodward complained about "vicious language"? That was my sarcastic editorial comment. Also, do you think it is honest to clip a phrase and use it out of context to misrepresent the statement that was being made, as you have with the phrase "you will regret". In context, it is clear that Sperling was not issuing a threat with that remark, but was saying as a friend, he believe that Woodward would have regrets about his statements.

OK, I misread your sarcasm on the "vicious language". There is a sarcasm sign if you want to make it clearer (not that you need to).

There wasn't any dishonest intent on my part with my quote. It was quoted directly from your post where all of the context was shown for anyone to see. I saw no point in quoting the whole thing again. The main point was the use of the word "regret".

Sperling had yelled at Woodward on the phone about his article, then sent the email you showed. After being yelled at, I do think that word "regret" will stand out to a reporter since it's coming from the White House, even though he added "as a friend" to it. What's there to regret about Woodward's statement that the White House moved the "goal post"? It's an opinion, and a minor one compared to the main point of the article which was that the sequester idea came from the White House, and I still don't see the White House disputing that. If you are wrong and going to regret something, it seems it should be more major than just saying the White House moved the goal post. Big deal. Again, I think the word was used intentionally because it otherwise makes little sense.

Plus we have Lanny Davis (an Obama supporter) and Ron Fournier of the National Journal (not a conservative publication so far as I know; and it's not th National Review) say similar things about this White House (including the word "regret" in Fournier's case) to futher support this. From a WP editorial...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/02/28/obama-white-house-and-the-media-an-integrity-problem/

Woodward did say the original sequestor deal between the White House (Biden) and the Republicans (McConnell) did not include revenue increases. Even there I don't see a specific denial. The quotes I've seen were about the super committee and later stuff. So if in fact the original deal did not include revenue increases, then the "goal post" has moved a lot.

It's just strange we are talking about the "goal post" when the big point of Woodward's article was about the sequester suggestion coming from the White House, which I don't see them denying.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story.html

pineinthegrass wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Hmm, where did anyone say that Woodward complained about "vicious language"? That was my sarcastic editorial comment. Also, do you think it is honest to clip a phrase and use it out of context to misrepresent the statement that was being made, as you have with the phrase "you will regret". In context, it is clear that Sperling was not issuing a threat with that remark, but was saying as a friend, he believe that Woodward would have regrets about his statements.

OK, I misread your sarcasm on the "vicious language". There is a sarcasm sign if you want to make it clearer (not that you need to).

There wasn't any dishonest intent on my part with my quote. It was quoted directly from your post where all of the context was shown for anyone to see. I saw no point in quoting the whole thing again. The main point was the use of the word "regret".

Sperling had yelled at Woodward on the phone about his article, then sent the email you showed. After being yelled at, I do think that word "regret" will stand out to a reporter since it's coming from the White House, even though he added "as a friend" to it. What's there to regret about Woodward's statement that the White House moved the "goal post"? It's an opinion, and a minor one compared to the main point of the article which was that the sequester idea came from the White House, and I still don't see the White House disputing that. If you are wrong and going to regret something, it seems it should be more major than just saying the White House moved the goal post. Big deal. Again, I think the word was used intentionally because it otherwise makes little sense.

Plus we have Lanny Davis (an Obama supporter) and Ron Fournier of the National Journal (not a conservative publication so far as I know; and it's not th National Review) say similar things about this White House (including the word "regret" in Fournier's case) to futher support this. From a WP editorial...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/02/28/obama-white-house-and-the-media-an-integrity-problem/

Woodward did say the original sequestor deal between the White House (Biden) and the Republicans (McConnell) did not include revenue increases. Even there I don't see a specific denial. The quotes I've seen were about the super committee and later stuff. So if in fact the original deal did not include revenue increases, then the "goal post" has moved a lot.

It's just strange we are talking about the "goal post" when the big point of Woodward's article was about the sequester suggestion coming from the White House, which I don't see them denying.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story.html

Then why did Woodward tell him that he had done nothing to apologize for? The other reporters are now calling Woodward a pussy for getting his panties in such a twist over such a mild rebuke.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Then why did Woodward tell him that he had done nothing to apologize for? The other reporters are now calling Woodward a pussy for getting his panties in such a twist over such a mild rebuke.

What other reporters? Does this suggest no reporters are supporting Woodward? If not, what's the point?

IMO, both Sperling and Woodward were softening the arguement after the yelling from Sperling which had already taken place. Yelling is a mild rebuke?

No comments from you on my points? Do you have any evidence to disprove what Woodward said about the idea of the sequester coming from the White House? Or anything to show that the original deal between Biden and McConnell did not include revenue increases (if so, the "goal post" did move)? Or anything to show that the White House did not make threats (or yell) at the other two individuals?

Look at the language of the act itself. All the WH can do is propose legislation, the House GOP actually wrote it. They wrote it, they own it. They voted for it, they own it. Nothing in the deal stated that the deficit reduction would be done only by spending cuts, the "goal posts" were not stuck on spending cuts, but clearly including raising revenues as well.


Gee, it must be a terrible thing for a reporter to be "yelled" at over the telephone during a heated discussion. Even Woodward is now walking back his "threatened" comments. And if you look at his comments in his follow up email, he clearly did not think it was a big deal, until he got some tv time out of it. I am sure that the combat reporters are laughing their asses off at such a pantywaist.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Look at the language of the act itself. All the WH can do is propose legislation, the House GOP actually wrote it. They wrote it, they own it. They voted for it, they own it. Nothing in the deal stated that the deficit reduction would be done only by spending cuts, the "goal posts" were not stuck on spending cuts, but clearly including raising revenues as well.


Gee, it must be a terrible thing for a reporter to be "yelled" at over the telephone during a heated discussion. Even Woodward is now walking back his "threatened" comments. And if you look at his comments in his follow up email, he clearly did not think it was a big deal, until he got some tv time out of it. I am sure that the combat reporters are laughing their asses off at such a pantywaist.

Here's the problem. The problem is that these people in Washington work for the people and not the other way around. Real journalists (hard to find anymore) should hold both sides accountable for their actions... but that becomes difficult for many for fear of being refused access. This thin skinned administration has gotten a pass on so many issues in the last four years that it's almost laughable. Woodward called this as he saw it and gets shouted down for it. So if they do this crap to professionals like Woodward, just think what they do to journalists still wet behind the ears.

Gotta ask you dog, did you have a problem with Woodward going after GW Bush? I'm guessing you were cool with that.

I have spent no time worrying about Bob Woodward and his actions. I just find it very funny that conservatives believe that it is so very important that he was "threatened" by a very cordial email. He must be an incredibly sensitive individual. I also find it funny that you believe that this was so bad, while no problem with Bush and Cheney referring to a NY Times reporter as a fucking asshole.

Something the Dog Said wrote: I have spent no time worrying about Bob Woodward and his actions. I just find it very funny that conservatives believe that it is so very important that he was "threatened" by a very cordial email. He must be an incredibly sensitive individual. I also find it funny that you believe that this was so bad, while no problem with Bush and Cheney referring to a NY Times reporter as a f***ing asshole.

What I care about is THE FACT that from the early days of Obama's presidency, his fragile thin skin was revealed when he went directly after people like Hannity and Rush because they didn't agree with his politics. It makes the president look weak when he constantly whines about his critics. Obama has a bad habit of doing softball inteviews where he is rarely ever asked a tough question. So when a guy like Woodward (respected by both sides) goes after him, his administration or supporters blow a head gasket. How dare we question the presidents actions or motives... and our journalists should do their best to not upset this administration because thiis administration is always right and honest

There is a Chicago style intimidation process that exists within this administration that is just plain wrong. They use varying tactics to discredit or demonize ANYONE who does not walk in step with their belief system. They are attempting to control the press and as a result the message leaving Washington. Truth does not seem to be a part of this message.
If one disagrees with the platform, they are discredit through character assignation, much like what is complained about here.
Tone is set at the top and the tone from the top of the democrats is ugly and offensive a good deal of the time.
Woodward is but one example of the strong arming going on with this administration.
It is just a blatant example when a loyal liberal reporter is thrown to the wolves.
What I don't understand is why stories like these below aren't offensive to you as a liberal.
Does the end really justify the means?

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/j ... ption.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/201 ... 58172.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/201 ... 58182.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... n_him.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... n_him.html