It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mad Dog General Mattis Torches Bob Woodward For 'Fiction' Anti-Trump Book

page: 18
68
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12




Mattis will be gone soon anyway.


You know this how? Or is it just wishful thinking?




posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

So you were arguing this whole time and didn't even bother to read the other side's version?

Sounds typical.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Protecting Trump? No matter how often I say it, it just doesn't seem to sink in... I don't like the man. Never have, likely never will. Did not vote for him, likely will not next go 'round, either.

My sole issue with Woodwards book, and those applauding it, is the "anonymous" sources who are, apparently, more reliable than the actual people refuting those great sources.

Why? Because they, those anonymous sources, confirm an already existing bias. Don't they??



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

Woodward had 43 meetings or phone calls with Casey over the time period he was writing the book in question. All of which is documented.

Casey's own deputy, Robert Gates, even stated that he visited Casey around the same time Woodward did and that he had a longer conversation with him than Woodward. Gates' own words about Casey's condition at the time:


When I saw him in the hospital, his speech was even more slurred than usual, but if you knew him well, you could make out a few words, enough to get sense of what he was saying.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Well perhaps. This didnt require going very far.

First off the book hasn't even been released yet.
Second the pre-release is less than 24 hours old and nobody has had time to read it let alone file any law suits.
Third, they'd have to claim in court the contents are false and that they have been damaged by the false information that was published. That's strict adherence to that law.
And this is where I stand on the other tell all books. No one has sued because they don't meet the criteria. The statements are false AND they have sustained some kind of damage due to its publication.
In the example you gave about the movie the statements were false but since no one believed them but some fringe conspiracy theorists no damage was sustained and to successfully sue for libel you must prove you've sustained some damage.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

While people have criticized Woodward's use of anonymous sources in the past, most agree that the information he gets out of them is accurate. Robert Gates has stated that he wishes he had Woodward in the CIA because he has a way of getting people to talk about things they're not supposed to.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus




Compare that to the President of the United States and the "Best People" he personally chose and appointed to work closely with him


Right? At any level. The people who take messages for the president for instance.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

That is certainly possible. It might even be true.

If so, quite frankly, he should be fired. However, my reading of the man is very different. I don't think he's one to hide behind "anonymous". He's got an issue? You're going to know about it. He doesn't need this job...he'd be able to hook up with any number of think tanks, networks, etc... as an advisor with little problem.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
No one has sued because they don't meet the criteria.

Do the butt-hurt not think that this was probably one of the most heavily-vetted manuscripts in history? That lawyers have not been all over it since day one? Hell...I'd love to read the 'before' version!



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

All that, as I said above, could very well be true.

But why are some so willing to believe the "anonymous sources" without even knowing who they are?? Because it confirms they're preexisting bias.

Further confirmation of that bias comes when those same folks disbelieve the denial by those "quoted" individuals.

Maybe how you're seeing it is the reality. I don't know. Nor does anyone else. If I'm wrong, it'll hardly be the first time.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Was it not posted earlier in this thread??

Or was I imagining things?



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: olaru12

My sole issue with Woodwards book, and those applauding it, is the "anonymous" sources who are, apparently, more reliable than the actual people refuting those great sources.



Woodward's entire legacy, reputation and career stands behind his reporting.

In short and in answer to your question?

Woodward's professional survival requires him to report truthfully.

For people working with Trump, their professional survival requires them to lie.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull


Tell me, why are those anonymous sources so much more reliable than the actual words from Mathis?

Shall I give you a hint? The former confirm your bias, the latter doesn't.


Problem is we don't have Mathis's words... we have a tweet from Trump allegedly quoting him:



twitter.com...



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: olaru12

My sole issue with Woodwards book, and those applauding it, is the "anonymous" sources who are, apparently, more reliable than the actual people refuting those great sources.



Woodward's entire legacy, reputation and career stands behind his reporting.

In short and in answer to your question?

Woodward's professional survival requires him to report truthfully.

For people working with Trump, their professional survival requires them to lie.


Who has better credibility in straight forward truth?

Trump or Woodward?



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Everyone in the WH knows "Fear" is true. Looks like Kelly ann will be gone soon.

www.rawstory.com...



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


So your stance is we have to believe this gossip because Woodward says he has tapes, but he won’t ever release the tapes because he is protecting sources


That is not my stance at all. Please stop building strawmen. I believe Woodward because he has a solid reputation as a journalist. He would not claim to have tapes if he does not have them... unlike Trump. It is because he is a great journalist that he will not endanger his sources. And in this case, I do mean endanger.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull




Was it not posted earlier in this thread??


Not that I'm aware of. It shouldn't be hard to link, if it exists. Please, do link Mattis' official statement on this issue.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: vinifalou


What "other side's version"? Trump's?



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Mattis is still military and Trump is still his commanding officer. Mattis may not need the job but I can't think of anyone openly admitting to insubordination and/or contempt regardless of how little they pull their punches.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: seagull

He's not exactly resting on his laurels. He's continued to be a writer for the Washington Post over all these decades and was their lead reporter for 9/11. He's currently an editor there as well.

He has written 18 books. All of them have been bestsellers with 12 of them reading number one.

He broke the story on the 1996 campaign finance controversy.

He spent more time with President Bush than any other journalist. Totaling 11 hours worth of interviews.

The list keeps going on. Most in the journalism world consider him to be the greatest reporter of his generation and maybe ever.


As far as journalists go..he has integrity and a reputation...a national treasure in the world of political reporting.....that he wouldn't just say ... "aweee screw it...its time I done a scandal and gossip dirty tabloid type of book...just for snips and giggles "

is totally ludicrous. But....

It won't matter one iota.
He has published bad words about the Orange Leader..so DJT supporters will now commence the ripping to shreds of this man's legacy.
Disgusting hypocrites.

Anonymity as regards " sources " = good enough for Trump's fantasies...just not acceptable for reporters and journalists of good standing



new topics

top topics



 
68
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join