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

page: 6
88
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Gene Sperling...how does the underside of the HopeyChangey chassis look, as you sir are now officially "under the bus."

Funny...Woodward said, emphatically on CNN, that it was a "senior White House advisor." I think many of us would have to scour the Internet to "find" Sperling on a WH roster...yet the verbal allusion left the impression 'you'd know the email writer if I told you.' Fascinating...

Now that Sperling has been named, I wonder if the "unnamed, career government employee" (that underling in DHS who no one knows--not Obama, not Napolitano) but yet has enough "power" to issue the release of federal immigration detainees, will be outed as well. Maybe he/she can "do lunch" w/Sperling...and compare bus schedules.




posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 

I think I see a Breitbart coming :O



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Just an FYI - Don't know if full context has been posted yet.

And before everyone shouts...I am justing posting the facts of the email exchange...feel free to interpret and keep opinions as desired.



White House economic adviser Gene Sperling to Woodward:

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's response:

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.


That is the actual exchange and everyone is free to form an opinion on whether that was a threat or not



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Already been posted by BH on the last page....



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 09:53 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)

Lots of apologies and excuses coming down the pipe I see from Obama apologists and enablers. It's ludicrous that someone would make it out that Woodward was "physically" threatened by this rube. It was obviously a political threat to block access and such in the future, among other things.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post 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"

If the emails we're seeing are real - then the rest of the message provides everything you're looking for

If they're not real - we're still left only with Woodward's account and interpretation

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?



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Glinda
Gene Sperling...how does the underside of the HopeyChangey chassis look, as you sir are now officially "under the bus."

Funny...Woodward said, emphatically on CNN, that it was a "senior White House advisor." I think many of us would have to scour the Internet to "find" Sperling on a WH roster...yet the verbal allusion left the impression 'you'd know the email writer if I told you.' Fascinating...

Now that Sperling has been named, I wonder if the "unnamed, career government employee" (that underling in DHS who no one knows--not Obama, not Napolitano) but yet has enough "power" to issue the release of federal immigration detainees, will be outed as well. Maybe he/she can "do lunch" w/Sperling...and compare bus schedules.



Excellent point. When this Sperling revelation was revealed my first thought was ... Who?? It does not jive with what Woodward said at all. Perhaps "they" have already gotten to Bob in one way or another.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ColoradoJens

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by BABYBULL24
 


Actually very relevant, and all the more interesting....think on that.
If, and that is if Woodward is speaking out now in any way as a timed event,
that would point you in the right direction.



Sure...how about this zinger from the best investigative journalist we have around:


Woodward believed the Bush administration's claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction prior to the war. During an appearance on Larry King Live, he was asked by a telephone caller, "Suppose we go to war and go into Iraq and there are no weapons of mass destruction," Woodward responded "I think the chance of that happening is about zero. There's just too much there."[12]


Seems like perhaps he sometimes doesn't know as much as he would like us to believe. Or perhaps, there is a different motive behind his words.

link

CJ

We now know what happened to the WMD. They were moved to Syria for the next FF operation. Oh they were moved by us too just as we've been running guns into the area. This is a huge mess.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   
WTF else is this piece of crap diverting attention from?
The small cuts to the budget are hardly crippling to anyone.
There is somebodys agenda being served here, and i think Woodward is servng it...The email seems
inocuos enough,whats the big deal?



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Freenrgy2
 

I've been saying it for a while too. If they can't run this country without those pennies, something is really wrong. The markets had a huge run yesterday. I say it's just about primed for a huge tank. That's how they rob equity from the populous.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by stirling
WTF else is this piece of crap diverting attention from?
The small cuts to the budget are hardly crippling to anyone.
There is somebodys agenda being served here, and i think Woodward is servng it...The email seems
inocuos enough,whats the big deal?


Hmmm. That is a real possibility. Toss a bone in the weeds and let the dogs sniff in the wrong place? Well if this is true, then we are certainly screwed.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   
I'm calling Obama's sequestration bluff. So worried about the impact of this yet John Kerry. our new Sec. of State, just pledged $60 million in Aid to the Syrian rebels opposed to Assad.

In a time of such dire circumstances to our nation (according to Obama) Where is the $60 mill. coming from? But its ok to issue furloughs to thousands of Federal Workers and to scare the nation into thinking the worse. Hmmm!! Really?

Think about it



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 


Great point! In my opinion, this is more likely than any "threat" that the right-wing media and Woodward are trying to suggest.

As Spira said, what's more likely? reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 


Either the machine behind the White House is incredibly stupid, or they're incredibly smart. And they're not stupid enough to threaten one of the most popular and respected political journalists... in an EMAIL!



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Obamas a criminal, way worse than Nixon could have ever gotten credit for. Hes a menace to the American people and our national security and needs erased from our lives quickly before its too late.

Woodward should post the Email and force the bastards to explain themselves or face state and federal harassment charges



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by SPECULUM
 


The email has been posted.
It's in this thread. www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 





The small cuts to the budget are hardly crippling to anyone.


Actually cuts in projected spending.

Not even a cut.... in reality. Still spending more, as always with Washington.... just not quite as much more.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Majic
 



It really is inappropriate and unseemly for a journalist to challenge or criticize the U.S. government.

Mr. Woodward, as a well-respected author and investigative reporter, should -- of all people -- know that by now.


Are you quoting something or making a joke? Saying that journalists aren’t supposed to challenge the government is one of the most ludicrous, unpatriotic, sheeple-like statements I’ve read in quite some time.


Maybe you could point to the journalistic code of ethics that defines this requirement. I was reading through the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics and I couldn’t find anything about carrying the administration’s water or not challenging the government when presented with evidence.


Most of us on ATS scream from the roof tops about the media bias and the intentional burying of important news, and when one journalist finally comes forward with alarming news about this administration we chastise him???

Am I on ATS? Where were you during 8 years of the Bush administration when slamming Bush in the media was a national pastime?

I think US has officially become Nazi Germany. I’m waiting to see Joseph Goebbels’ grandson appointed the new White House Press secretary. Has that thread been created yet??



edit on 28-2-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bilk22

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

I want to see the email before making my judgment about it all.


Lots of apologies and excuses coming down the pipe I see from Obama apologists and enablers. .



Hmmm...So a poster explains that they want to see the actual email before comming to a conclusion...

And for that preference to reserve judgement and examine the factual evidence before comming to a conclusion..

You label that poster an "Obama apologist and enabler" ???

That might sum up well what is wrong with ATS.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis


If they're not real - we're still left only with Woodward's account and interpretation

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?



I thought Woodward himself released the emails?

And though I know it will, as always, rankle a certain segment of posters....but from what I am reading it appears as if he was telling Woodward that as more facts and evidence became public, woodwards credibility would take a hit? Thus he would regret "staking out this claim"?

Woodward certainly did appear insulted or threatened in his response?



White House economic adviser Gene Sperling to Woodward:

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's response:

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.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   
edit on 28-2-2013 by starfoxxx because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
88
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join