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

a reply to: Grambler

YOU are the one saying he will release tapes to prove his book is true

Never said that. You are the one demanding that he do that without a subpoena. That would be a violation of his journalistic ethics.

You are the one saying releasing them now though for some reason would be against ethics, ignoring he has already released one tape

That is because he is bound to protect his sources. He released the tape of his conversation with Trump because it was not "on background." No violation there.

You are defending this book and it’s sources as without a doubt true despite the fact you haven’t read one page, and don’t even know who Woodward is claiming his sources are

I am familiar with Woodward's journalism and his integrity. None of the statements that have been released in any way contradict what we know of Trump's public behavior. This makes them credible. What part of this "gossip" do you find hard to believe?

So don’t lecture me about ethics

You seem to need the lecture.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Grambler

Woodward would have provided his tapes, diaries, etc to his editor and publisher's lawyers. They're not going to let him publish anything that can't be backed up with evidence. They're not going to leave themselves open to any kind of lawsuit.

That is just not true

We know much of the gossip in Michael wolffs book fire and fury were unsubstantiated

Such as his claims Nikki Haleys slept with trump

Yet his publisher allowed that story

And again, perhaps Woodward does have tapes of some person saying they heard Mattis or trump say something

Ok that is hearsay gossip, not journalism

a reply to: Grambler

Why are you so desperate to quell this story?

a reply to: DJW001

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

Ok I get it

Oh and I have tapes of anonymous sources telling me Hillary and obama kill children

I can’t release the tapes though because I need to protect my sources

So surely you must believe me and be disgusted by obama and Hillary

And if you say you won’t believe me unless I release the tapes, well clearly you don’t understand journalistic ethics

Nothing i have heard so far inthe book amounts to nothing. Rehashed media stories.

The big story and what the admin needs to focus on is their response.

Sending out a dog to refute a bunch of petty talk as being untrue is a bad reaction.

Just go with the flow and say something like "were getting better everyday" instead of constantly fighting against the current cause the goal of the book is to trap them in some cover up.

Own that crap like it is gold and be yourself.

People are attracted to backbone.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: soberbacchus

www.npr.org...
Why would he think responding to this rubbish to suit your whims is needed

Because his boss obviously thinks it is needed?

So much so that he mocked together statements that aren't statements, but rather old quotes out of context and parsed together to appear as new statements and combined with Trump speak.

An NPR interview where Kelly said nice things about Trump is pointless.

Why is it so hard for Kelly or Mattis to simply issue a statement saying they never said what they are being quoted for?

Pretty simple. Go on record.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler

Why are you so desperate to quell this story?

Hahahaha!

What?

I am discussing something in ats, rather calmly I think

I asked last night and tonight what parts of it people find most important

I was told excerpts showing people close to trump said he is dumb

To me, that is a non story, and is a rather lame effort at real journalism

If it’s important to you, more power to you

We are then discuss the sources

I haven’t even seen Woodward claim who the sources are

Does he have a tape showing Mattis saying trump is dumb, or does he have a tape having someone claiming they heard Mattis say trump is dumb?

No ones knows, yet we have people on this very thread saying this will lead to trumps impeachment

It’s laughable

a reply to: Grambler

When you've built up the reputation Woodward has then I'll trust your sources. Until then you're just some guy on the internet while Woodward is a guy that brought down a president using anonymous sources.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Nothing i have heard so far inthe book amounts to nothing. Rehashed media stories.

It clearly shows Trump's very deep well of incompetence, ignorance and self-obsession.

The big story and what the admin needs to focus on is their response.

Sending out a dog to refute a bunch of petty talk as being untrue is a bad reaction.

Calling trump a dog gives him too much credit.

a reply to: Grambler

Actually it is journalism. Woodward is reporting on what he saw and heard while interacting with White House staff. It doesn't seem like he's providing much commentary. Just reporting.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I guess that’s the difference between us

I won’t take someone’s word on something with no proof, you will

That’s fair, just a disagreement

I don’t understand though how Woodward’s reputation would make claims of third party hearsay anymore believable

In other words

I am sure someone told Woodward they heard Matt say trump was dumb

Does Woodward’s reputation mean that someone was telling the truth and we have to believe it, even if Mattis denies it? I don’t think so

And even if Mattis did say that, how is this serious journalism worthy of Woodward reputation

He couldn’t be bothered to investigate politicians on all sides bailing out corrupt bankers, or lying us into wars

Nope, he was busy finding out which insults trumo called sessions

a reply to: soberbacchus

So much so that he mocked together statements that aren't statements, but rather old quotes out of context and parsed together to appear as new statements and combined with Trump speak.

I would love to see an actual source for this rubbish. If you have one by all means please provide it. Just don't try and pass off your opinion as fact. Nobody is buying it. Lots of publications have printed reactions to the gossip story book, guess they are all fake news now?
Funny not even npr has credibility with you now, especially when the npr interview directly contradicts the fairy tales you seem to believe in.

Why is it so hard for Kelly or Mattis to simply issue a statement saying they never said what they are being quoted for? Pretty simple. Go on record.

Seems they have as I have sited numerous publications that have printed such? Or do theses publications not do research and verify what they print now?

a reply to: burntheships

I thought the premise of most Trump supporters that boast an above room temperature IQ, was "Yes, he's a goof, but he's our goof!"

I don't understand why they are so upset when it's been doubled-down upon. This book won't cost him a single vote from his base.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler

Why are you so desperate to quell this story?

I asked last night and tonight what parts of it people find most important

I was told excerpts showing people close to trump said he is dumb

To me, that is a non story,

Chief of Staff: "He's an idiot" “off the rails,” “we’re in Crazytown.”
Secretary of State: "He's a effen moron"
Secretary of Defense: He has the foreign policy understanding of “a fifth- or sixth-grader.”
Trump's own Defense Attorney in the Russia Investigation" "He's a effen liar!"

The fact you find that a non-story reflects how much the right wing have lowered it standards rather than admit they elected a effen moron.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I'm sure you already understood the point Trump supporters are making. If you're taking it in consideration, that's up to you and your bias.

But I'll make it clear again. Just because he has a so-called reputation, no one needs to accept everything he said as fact.

Unless he has something else, other than his, and his "unnamed sources", then it's all rumors. I won't call it a lie or a truth because I honestly don't know, and neither do you. You just want to believe it's all true.

And if you don't believe that this book was political, NOT journalistic material propaganda, then you need a reality check. It's all to undermine the President, not to spread facts.

Care to show me otherwise? I'm all up for healthy debates.

a reply to: soberbacchus

No I don’t find their name calling and judgements about the presidents intelligence to be a big journalistic story at all

I find the policies that are coming out of trumps admin to be more important than what an anonymous person said they heard people in trumps team say about him

Were you as enthralled by the book by Hillary’s secret service agent saying how horrible of a person she was?

I wasn’t, I thought that was gossip as well

a reply to: Grambler

Woodward has always primarily reported on the going ons at the White House. Why would he change that now at the age of 75?

To quote David Gergen, a man who has worked for numerous presidents, including Nixon:

"I don't accept everything he writes as gospel—he can get details wrong—but generally, his accounts in both his books and in the Post are remarkably reliable and demand serious attention. I am convinced he writes only what he believes to be true or has been reliably told to be true. And he is certainly a force for keeping the government honest."

a reply to: shooterbrody

Why would the Secretary of Defense and Whitehouse Chief of Staff not issue official, direct statements FROM THEMSELVES if they have been allegedly misquoted or lied about?

Why would Trump instead tweet odd images of statements without letterhead or signature?

a reply to: vinifalou

I don't recall anyone on this site taking issue with Woodward's journalism when he was writing similar style books about Obama, both Bushes, and Clinton. In fact he spent more time with Bush II than any other journalist.

So why is it that all of a sudden there's issues with his reporting?

a reply to: soberbacchus

So "unnamed trusted sources" says you said something, without providing anything to back this up other than someone else's word,

And the fault's on YOU for NOT denying?

I know you guys have a problem using logical thinking... But common, this is getting ugly to watch.