% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.


  • craigsswanndo craigsswanndo Feb 28, 2013 4:08 PM Flag

    O/T- Mr. Woodward


    This is just unbelievable,, The White House Staff telling Bob Woodward that he will regret stepping on Obama's toes when the Obama White House caught in a blatant lie about the sequestration in that it was Obama's idea in the first place,, and what is even worse is that Woodward is a dem and his own party and the so called leftest news people are trying to roast him as well,, Woodward, who is as well respected as any news man in the country, is at the top of his game,, I wonder who is going to regret shiet now,, the Obama White House is truely evil in its threats to the American citizens, and any time someone disagrees with Obama, his people will come after you,, like they are with Mr. Woodward and his own people are throwing him in front of the bus,,

    Sentiment: Hold

    This topic is deleted.
    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • This is a test

    • Axelrod Mocks: ‘Bob Woodward Feels Intimidated By Gene Sperling? Please!’

      by Andrew Kirell | March 1st, 2013, Mediaite

      Immediately after Bob Woodward appeared on Morning Joe today, MSNBC’s David Axelrod mocked the longtime journalist’s sequester dust-up, downplaying the ability of someone like Obama aide Gene Sperling to “intimidate” someone as legendary as Woodward.

      After Woodward’s interview with the Morning Joe crew concluded, host Joe Scarborough turned to Axelrod and said, “You are grumpy.”

      “I’m not grumpy,” the Obama-advisor-turned-MSNBC-contributor replied. “Bob was the one who raised the e-mails in the first place.”

      Scarborough tried to find common ground with Axelrod, asking him to concede that “If you want to get something done [in Washington], you don’t get in somebody’s face and say, ‘Let me tell you.’ You go up to them and say, ‘Listen, we’re friends, we know how this works.’”

      “What is Gene Sperling going to do to Bob Woodward?” Axelrod dismissed.

      “Oh my God! Sperling?” agreed co-host Mika Brzezinski.

      “What is Gene Sperling going to do to Bob Woodward? Bob Woodward, who faced down as a young man H.R. Haldeman is worried, feels intimidated, by Gene Sperling? Please!” the former Obama advisor continued.

      “Do not diss Gene Sperling,” inserted John Heilemann. “He is a fierce, fierce man.”

      “He’s the Albert Schweitzer of economists,” joked Axelrod.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

      • 1 Reply to elk_1l
      • What's the Matter with Bob Woodward These Days?

        Jon Stewart takes on the collapse of the famed Watergate journalist who's now a right-wing conspiracy theorist.

        March 1, 2013 | Alternet

        On last night’s Daily Show, Jon Stewart took on the collapse of famed Watergate journalist, Bob Woodward.

        Woodward riled up the press this week claiming the Obama administration issued him a “veiled threat” over a Washington Post op-ed he wrote saying the president “moved the goal posts” by demanding new revenue in budget talks.

        Stewart expressed the hysteric tone of Woodward’s claims, after the former journalistic hero made media rounds riding on this senior official’s alleged threat.

        “These Chicago-style thugs strong arming a formerly young reporter like this,” Stewart said. “If only we had the emails.”

        Stewart proceeded to read snippets of the email exchange between Woodward and the White House’s muscle—economic advisor Gene Sperling.

        “I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today,” Sperling wrote, “I do truly believe you should rethinking your comment about 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.”

        Jon ridiculed the notion that Sperling’s words could ever be conceived as a threat.

        “And Woodward, if I ever see you on these streets of this town again,” Stewart said in a mock gangster voice, “I will wave to you because we are good friends.”

        That Woodward’s response email begins, “You do not ever have to apologize to me,” makes assertions of threat victimization even more laughable.

        Stewart observed, “Access means never having to say you’re sorry.”

        Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • Why is it unbelievable? #$%$ Cheney ratted out a CIA operative who disagreed with Cheney lies anpropaganda, blamed Scooter Libby for the "leak" and let Libby take the fall(of course your man Bush let him off the hook) and put the lives of 2 secret CIA operatives in harm's way and destroyed their careers. And CHENEY was VICE PRESIDENT, not some small nobody aid to some other small White House staffer. What's unbelievable is that CHENY, in a drunken stupor, shot a hunting buddy in the face, NO investigation, and then the guy who got shot in the face apologized to CHENEY !!!!!! Now that is some unbelievable stuff right there big guy. But you go ahead and grab onto any crumb you can and try to turn it into a loaf of bread, it's the FAUX News way !!!!

    • Bob Woodward Emails Show White House 'Threat' Was Not So Threatening

      The Huffington Post  |  By Jack Mirkinson, 02/28/2013

      Bob Woodward may have thought that top White House economic adviser Gene Sperling was threatening him in an email exchange, but that's certainly not how Woodward responded to the email, Politico revealed Thursday.

      Woodward made waves on Wednesday night when he took to CNN and Politico to accuse the White House of deploying heavy-handed tactics with him after he questioned the Obama administration's account of the negotiations over the looming budget sequester. Sperling -- who he did not name at the time -- had told him he'd "regret" moving forward with his narrative, Woodward said, making it clear that he saw this as a threat.
      "It makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters, you're going to regret doing something that you believe in," he told Wolf Blitzer. The White House told The Huffington Post that Sperling was merely trying to tell Woodward he would regret writing something that was inaccurate.

      On Thursday morning, Politico released the text of the email exchange between Woodward and Sperling. The emails look to be a far cry from the kind of thuggery that Woodward implied.
      Here's an excerpt from Sperling:

      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, who would later profess to be unnerved by Sperling's email, replied very calmly:
      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.

      Woodward is reportedly slated to appear on Sean Hannity's Fox News show Thursday night to discuss the exchange. Viewers will surely wonder what he will have to say.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

      • 3 Replies to elk_1l
      • Elk, you're talking emails. Live interviews show something different. I'm sure you want to be fair and balanced. Right?

      • Elky my son, this post proves what some have suspected or known about you all along. ....a purveyor of progressive propaganda. " Bob Woodward Emails Show White House 'Threat' Was Not So Threatening", are you kidding Elky? Would you send anyone an email telling them " you would regret......", regardless of what the regret is? Why should there be any reason for regret, if Bob Woodward exposed WH lies, unless someone is not happy with the TRUTH, hmmmm?

        The propaganda machine will be further damaged as they try to spin a threat with more lies. America gets it, you guys don't. I am afraid the genie is out of the lamp...WoPo let da LYING genie out and "Puffpo" can't put it back in. Now ya crying "who let da dog out"....who, who, who who! bwahahahahahaha.

        If Gene's email wasn't a threat, why would Plouff take to twitter to call Bob Woodward a "has been"? I'd guess you will find a Puffpo propaganda that will call the "has been" twitter a compliment to Bob Woodard....bwahahahahaha. It is Over, when ya over play ya hand with reckless abandon, this is what happens. You can fool some of the people all the time, but certainly not ALL of the people.

        CREDIBILITY matters!

        You are nothing, and lose respect, when ya have no credibility...America now sees all the MANUFACTURED crisses for what they are....CHICANERY!

        Buba once said "the era of big government is over', all Bob Woodward is saying is that "the era of LYING TO AMERICA is OVER"


        Washington's most celebrated journalist hails the values of militarism, lawlessness, and presidential omnipotence

        Glenn Greenwald, Guardian, Thursday 28 February 2013

        Earlier this month, the Pentagon announced that it would deploy "only" one aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf, rather than the customary two. This move, said the Pentagon, was in preparation for the so-called "sequestration", scheduled to take effect this week, that mandates spending cuts for all agencies, including the Pentagon. This aircraft carrier announcement was all part of the White House's campaign to scare the public into believing that sequestration, which Democrats blame on Republicans, will result in serious harm to national security. Shortly before this cut was announced, then-defense Secretary Leon Panetta said:
"With another trigger for sequestration approaching on March 1st, the Department of Defense is facing the most serious readiness crisis in over a decade . . . . Make no mistake, if these cuts happen there will be a serious disruption in defense programs and a sharp decline in military readiness."

        That the Obama administration might actually honor the budget cuts mandated by a law enacted by Congress and signed by Obama infuriates Bob Woodward, Washington's most celebrated journalist. He appeared this week on the "Morning Joe" program to excoriate Obama for withholding a second aircraft carrier in the Gulf, saying:

        "Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying 'Oh, by the way, I can't do this because of some budget document?' Or George W Bush saying, 'You know, I'm not going to invade Iraq because I can't get the aircraft carriers I need' or even Bill Clinton saying, 'You know, I'm not going to attack Saddam Hussein's intelligence headquarters,' as he did when Clinton was president, because of some budget document.

        "Under the Constitution, the president is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the president going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement, I can't do what I need to do to protect the country. That's a kind of madness that I haven't seen in a long time."

        As Brian Beutler points out: "the obscure type of budget document Woodward's referring to is called a duly enacted law — passed by Congress, signed by the President — and the only ways around it are for Congress to change it. . . . or for Obama to break it." But that's exactly what Woodward is demanding: that Obama trumpet his status as Commander-in-Chief in order to simply ignore - i.e. break - the law, just like those wonderful men before him would have done. Woodward derides the law as some petty, trivial annoyance ("this piece of paper") and thus mocks Obama's weakness for the crime of suggesting that the law is something he actually has to obey.

        How ironic that this comes from the reporter endlessly heralded for having brought down Richard Nixon's presidency on the ground that Nixon believed himself above the law. Nixon's hallmark proclamation - "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal" - is also apparently Bob Woodward's.
        All of this, of course, is pure pretense. Is it even remotely plausible that Obama is refraining from engaging in military action he believes is necessary out of some sort of quaint deference to the law? Please. This is a president who continued to wage war, in Libya, not merely without Congressional authorization, but even after Congress expressly voted against its authorization. This is a president who has repeatedly argued that he has the right to kill anyone he wants, anywhere in the world, not only due to Congressional authorization but also his own Commander-in-Chief powers. If Obama really wanted to deploy that second aircraft carrier, he would do so, knowing that journalists like Bob Woodward and members of both parties would cheer him. This is just a flamboyant political stunt designed to dramatize how those Big, Bad Republicans are leaving us all exposed and vulnerable with sequestration cuts.

        But whatever Obama's motives might be, the fact is that what we call "law" really does require some cuts in military spending. To refuse to do so would be to assert powers not even most monarchs have: to break the law at will. Woodward is right about one point: not only would prior presidents have been willing to do this, this is exactly what they did. Indeed, George Bush's entire presidency was explicitly predicated on the theory that the president has the power to break the law at will whenever he deems that doing so promotes national security. That America's most celebrated journalist not only supports this, but demands that all presidents follow this model of lawlessness, is telling indeed.

        Equally telling is the radical militarism implicit in Woodward's outburst. Contrary to the fear-mongering from the government and its media, the military cuts compelled by sequestration are extremely modest (as opposed to domestic spending cuts, which will actually produce genuine pain for many people). As the Washington Post's Ezra Klein documented: "even if we implement every single cut in the sequester, the fall in spending would be less than the military experienced after Korea, Vietnam, or the Cold War." Given the massive explosion of military spending in the name of the War on Terror over the last decade (which Klein notes was "larger than the rise during Vietnam and during the Cold War"), the sequestration-mandated cuts would be but a very small step in returning to a sane level of military spending.

        Then there's the hysteria Woodward spreads about how we'll all somehow be endangered if the US has only one rather than two aircraft carriers stalking Iran in the Gulf. What possible harm could come from that? None. This is all grounded in cartoon narrative that Iran is this frightening hegemon threatening the US at all times, and must be contained with massive assertions of military might. The reality, of course, is that even with these sequestration cuts, the US military budget is so much larger than Iran's that they are not in the same universe. That would be true if we had multiple sequestrations. The very idea that two aircraft carriers are needed at all in the Gulf, let alone necessary to Keep America Safe, is just laughable.

        Yet here is Bob Woodward, with one rant, expressing the core values of America's media class. The president is not constrained by law (contemptuously referred to as "this piece of paper"). He not only has the right but the duty to do anything - even if the law prohibits it - to project military force whenever he wants (even though the Constitution mandates as his prime duty not to Keep Us Safe but rather that he "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed" and thus must swear as his oath "to the best of [his] ability [to] preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States"). The US must act as empire, dominating the world with superior military force if it wants to stay safe. Any reduction in military spending and deployment will endanger us all.

        It's to be expected that these authoritarian and militaristic values shape political leaders and their followers. That these values also shape the "watchdog" media class, as embodied by one of their "legends", explains much about US political culture generally.

        Bob Woodward fulfills an important function. Just as Tim Russert was long held up as the scary bulldog questioner who proved the existence of an adversarial TV press while the reality was that, as Harper's Lewis Lapham famously put it, he maintained "the on-air persona of an attentive and accommodating headwaiter", the decades-old Woodward lore plays a critical role in maintaining the fiction of a watchdog press corps even though he is one of the most faithful servants of the war machine and the national security and surveillance states. Every once and awhile, the mask falls, and it's a good thing when it does.

        Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • First of all, who are the dip shiets that gave a thumbs down for truthfulness, ya jerks,,
      Next, hopefully this Woodward thing will be the start of the news left to start calling out the White House and start telling the American folks how the real world in the US is crumbling in front of us at the hands of all the politicains and lawyers,,

      Sentiment: Hold

    • they have been lieing since day one , also scarying the american people, what do you expect ,obama is from ill,that should tell you all you need to know.

    • C, it's a crying shame what this country has come to. We can all thank the liberals who still can't see the light. Their next act will be to push for the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a disguised effort to limit free speech. A political cancer has infected this country for sure.