Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Woodward: White House Warned Me "You Will Regret Doing This"

page: 5
88
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 06:51 AM
link   
The sequester is the biggest load of horse crap that I've seen exploited to the extent it has in quite awhile. Everything that is being shouted as doom and gloom is nothing but political staging. Not one thing needs to be shutdown because of this. These aren't even cuts! Read up on baseline budgeting. Most of these departments are only getting SMALLER INCREASES. Come on.

And the fact that we talking, what, 85 billion compared to our massive debt problem and the fact that some of these don't even go into effect right away or are enacted over 10 years should have everyone screaming "WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL!!!!"

This is the classic create the problem and then create the solution. Only, the government wants more of your money yo fix the problem. I really wonder how much money the government needs to take from the middle class before we all wake up and realize we've been duped. You know the taxes will affect the middle class no matter what anyone says about closing loopholes. The rich will ALWAYS find ways to keep and/or grow their money. Most people who work hard haven't got the education needed to manage their money like this, so they become SLAVES to government.

Yes, slavery is alive and well folks. If you live paycheck to paycheck and are dependent on someone to sustain your life then you are a slave. You may not be in literal chains, but you are strapped down.

The ONLY thing, and it pains me to say this, is that our government needs to be shutdown. They don't care about the genuine welfare of its citizens; they only care about their own power and political futures/legacies.

Whoa to America. The death bells are ringing. Will you pay your last respects?




posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Seems Woodward had a telephone argument with Gene Sperling, the Director of the National Economic Council. Sperling raised his voice a couple times and later wrote the infamous email of apology to Woodward (apologizing for raising his voice). That email said Mr. Woodward would regret what he said, NOT as a threat, but because Woodword's position was factually inaccurate and he would eventually be embarrassed. And, Woodward responded kindly, before bringing this story to the press...



UPDATE: Ben Smith and Josh Marshall say the "Obama aide" in question is Gene Sperling. Sperling is the 54-year old lawyer and economic adviser, who is currently serving as the Director of the National Economic Council, and has hitherto never been known as anyone a normal human adult would have any reason to feel physically threatened by.


Source

I want to see the email before making my judgment about it all.
edit on 2/28/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Earlier today, Woodward decided to go on cable television and insist that President Barack Obama could easily thwart the coming sequestration devastation by simply overriding the commonly held principles of constitutional governance and just flat-out ignore a law that Congress passed and which he signed.


Source

Just as I thought.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Bob Woodward's Ridiculous War with the White House



Woodward revealed an email from an unidentified administration official that read, "You're focusing on a few specific trees that give a very wrong impression of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here... I think you will regret staking out that claim."
...
According to Woodward, Obama can't ask for a balanced deficit-reduction package because he initially agreed that the sequester — $1.2 trillion in across-the-board spending cuts that are set to take effect on Friday — would be composed only of spending cuts. One look at the sequester legislation, which passed with grudging support from both Democrats and Republicans, shows that Woodward is factually incorrect. As Brian Beutler at Talking Points Memo explains:



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Seems Woodward had a telephone argument with Gene Sperling, the Director of the National Economic Council. Sperling raised his voice a couple times and later wrote the infamous email of apology to Woodward (apologizing for raising his voice). That email said Mr. Woodward would regret what he said, NOT as a threat, but because Woodword's position was factually inaccurate and he would eventually be embarrassed. And, Woodward responded kindly, before bringing this story to the press...



UPDATE: Ben Smith and Josh Marshall say the "Obama aide" in question is Gene Sperling. Sperling is the 54-year old lawyer and economic adviser, who is currently serving as the Director of the National Economic Council, and has hitherto never been known as anyone a normal human adult would have any reason to feel physically threatened by.


Source

I want to see the email before making my judgment about it all.
edit on 2/28/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)
I listened to the interviews of Woodward....
Funny thing is, he didn't seem to take it that way.

He likened it to something he has seen in the past.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by watcher3339

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
We could stand more real reporters and a lot less poodles reading their lines.

Take today for instance, here is Obama giving a speech about Rosa Parks, commending her for
taking a stand, exercizing her First Amendment rights, etc. Did none of the media have any sense
of irony at all given that you can't protest in the same way that was done for the Civil Rights movement.
Dissent on any kind is frowned on to say the least.

Meanwhile, a case concerning voting rights act being challenged in Alabama was ongoing.
It seems a black city councilman lost his seat when two new subdivisions opened up in his
district and it's residents were predominently,* gasp*, white! He lost. And some judge stepped in and
reappointed him. At least that's what it seemed like.
Now, how is this a good thing? He can only win if he's in an all black district? Two neighborhoods can not
sway an election can they?
How is this a shining light for equality? How can the media defend this action of overturning an election based on the correct race not winning or having sacred cow council seats designated by race?

Next, we have Bernanke giving his "testimony" to Congress and defending the "too big to fail' bank bailouts and the propping up of the stock market as being "good" for the economy. Nobody in the media pointed out the
13,000 jobs of these bailed out banks that are being cut. Obvious evidence his policy isn't working and that a
time of unwinding will depend on a higher employment rate is not being achieved by his and the FED's actions
either, showing it is having the exact opposite results.

Most of the media look like empty-eyed cows by comparison to Mr. Woodward.


I am quoting your entire post because it deserves to be read again. Especially your opening irony. You should make your own thread based on your points in this post.


Ditto.

It's the empty-eyed cows line that did it for me. I often doubt that handles such as theirs is an accurate reflection of real-life. Not this time - brilliant!!!



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

Fact: The sequester has not yet taken effect.

Fact: The Obama Administration has already started to operate as if it has, by releasing criminal illegal aliens into public.

Better yet.... sequestration does not cut spending from last year, it allows for more spending.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 



Originally posted by butcherguy
He likened it to something he has seen in the past.


Yeah. That Watergate thing sure made a name for Woodward, didn't it?

Update Story from Politico:

The Woodward Sperling Emails Revealed



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.
...
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


And Woodward's reply:


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: www.politico.com...


Now that I have read the emails, I have made my judgment.

edit on 2/28/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Interesting Update!! What is Woodward up to?

Show me the "real" email!! Not this recently fabricated one
Anyone can write one of those....

Just kidding!! Don't bite...

Why would Sperling tell Woodward he would regret his statements though? Regret is a feeling not often felt in the realm of Big Journalism. These guys are not motivated by "regrets"
edit on 28-2-2013 by jibeho because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 




Yeah. That Watergate thing sure made a name for Woodward, didn't it?

Would you suddenly call him a conservative now? Since he dared to speak ill of the Emperor?

Do you think that he has a valid point, as to whether Obama is playing a political game to the point of madness?

Crazy like a fox, IMO. But only because the dumbed-down sheep will buy the fertilizer that these politicians peddle (nearly all are included).



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 



Originally posted by jibeho

Why would Sperling tell Woodward he would regret his statements though? Regret is a feeling not often felt in the realm of Big Journalism. These guys are not motivated by "regrets"


Because Woodward has his facts wrong. Embarrassment. Journalists who get their facts wrong are publicly embarrassed and their ethics and competence are called into question. Not good for a journalist. Read the entire email from Gene in the link.
It explains it but I didn't post the whole thing.

reply to post by butcherguy
 



Originally posted by butcherguy
Would you suddenly call him a conservative now?


I find his political ideology irrelevant. I don't know what he claims to be.



Do you think that he has a valid point, as to whether Obama is playing a political game to the point of madness?


That's a judgment call. But here's mine:
Does Obama play political games? Yes, most assuredly. He's a politician.

Is he playing a political game in this instance? Probably to a degree.
Is he mad? No.
Was Woodward "threatened" by the White House, as he is trying to put forth? Absolutely not.

.
edit on 2/28/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





I find his political ideology irrelevant. I don't know what he claims to be


I am sure that you are aware that a lot of people do put stock in the political ideology of reporters and news organizations in general. Try posting a thread here with FOX News as a source.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 




Was Woodward "threatened" by the White House, as he is trying to put forth? Absolutely not.

So Woodward is lying to promote himself as a reporter?



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 



Originally posted by butcherguy
I am sure that you are aware that a lot of people do put stock in the political ideology of reporters and news organizations in general.


I really don't care what a lot of people put stock in. I don't know Woodward's political affiliation and I find it irrelevant. I think the facts of the story are FAR more relevant than taking a political side, judging someone's story because of their affiliation or getting stars and flags. My opinion is not popular. That's also irrelevant.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


I don't know what he's trying to do. Maybe sell a book? His motivations aren't really my concern. As I said, it's the facts that matter to me.

Edit: Interestingly, I wasn't the first to think that this is about Woodward's career...

Wo odward Picks the MOST and LEAST Important Fights with POTUS



The funny thing is that, personally, I'd love for Woodward to get permanently angry at Obama and spill all the scandalous, source-burning information he doubtless possesses, rather than staying on good terms with the president so we can all read an access rich book but fawning book in two years. What I refuse to let stand is the inane narrative that bravely standing up to Obama looks like what Woodward is doing, as opposed to what Charlie Savage or Glenn Greenwald do. Woodward is involved in an insiders' spat with Obama, who he wants to wield more power.

If conservatives want to take Obama to task for interfering in the ability of the political press to hold him accountable, there is plenty of fodder. To seize on this story instead is a sign of either deep ignorance or profound cynicism, or perhaps both at the same time. And just as the conservative media is showing its worst side as this unfolds, so too is the rest of the political press, which obsesses over the personalities and the perceptions that surround sequester negotiations in a way that gives everyone involved ample incentive to keep ignoring the substance. Its bad enough to cover elections with such a "horse race" emphasis; now the process of governing itself, even in the immediate aftermath of an election, is being covered that way.


It's just speculation, of course, but there's plenty of speculation on BOTH sides of this issue.
edit on 2/28/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



I think the facts of the story are FAR more relevant than taking a political side


I'm with you there!
So here are the facts again.



Fact: The sequester has not yet taken effect. Fact: The Obama Administration has already started to operate as if it has, by releasing criminal illegal aliens into public. Better yet.... sequestration does not cut spending from last year, it allows for more spending.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


And that has what to do with the subject of this thread? I am not arguing what the sequestration will or won't do, nor am I arguing that illegal immigrants have been released.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 09:10 AM
link   
People wanting to see the email denied this even happened, now that the e-mail is out AND TRUE, well it is just taken out of context...


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.


You can see it either way which is what makes it so sneaky, sly, and these guys write for a LIVING they choose their words VERY carefully.. Now why would he choose to tell someone their going to regret doing what they are doing when you KNOW it can be taken as a serious threat... It is bullying in the least, and having people in the whitehouse bullying around journalist makes me very suspicious of how much they really do this, which now as we can see, does happen... I make you a bet it happens all the time!
edit on 28-2-2013 by starfoxxx because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Well, Woodward isn't regretting it yet.

He is still milking it for every quarter-second of MSM face time he can grab.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 




And that has what to do with the subject of this thread?

Woodward called the White House out, using the facts of the matter.

Sequestration and the political uses of it by the Obama Administration IS what this is all about and Obama is doing things that are dangerous and detrimental to our nation, all to play politics. In that sense, it is a mad thing to do.






top topics



 
88
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join