If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Threatening email to Bob Woodward from the White House turns out to be the nicest apology letter ever   (politico.com) divider line 433
    More: Followup, Bob Woodward, White House, Gene Sperling  
•       •       •

6581 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Feb 2013 at 10:25 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



433 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-28 03:39:52 PM
Insert picture of Arnie as The Terminator who was sent back in time to kill Bob Woodard by FutureFartBama
 
2013-02-28 03:42:58 PM

GnomePaladin: Brubold: MilesTeg: I see the white house spin machine and their Fark shills are in full cover mode.

/expected

This.

Woodward is obviously a racist. Anyone that questions Obama is one don't ya know.

Which I guess explains why liberals give him a pass on all those Bush era programs he's continued and expanded. They don't want to be racists.

/hope they have fun not being racists in our burgeoning police state

Sorry guys, this won't work anymore.  They released the full text of the letters.  You both look pretty stupid.


This; that lot has gone full Black Knight.  What the hell are they going to argue now?
 
2013-02-28 03:44:01 PM

FlashHarry: so to sum up this thread:

• bob woodward, the sudden darling of the right wing, is caught in a lie.
• farkers pounce on this, making endless fun of him
• butthurt wingnuts leap to his defense by trying to imply that the non-wingnut community thinks he's racist for opposing obama, despite zero evidence to support that claim

is that about it?


That's about the gist of it, yeah.
 
2013-02-28 03:47:29 PM

whcrow: Man Democrats must be imploding..

Woodward and now Lanny Davis. I even heard Obama backing off his "the sky is falling" statements about sequestration .


Please, proceed with that line of projection there binky.
 
2013-02-28 03:59:17 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Phinn: When China stops buying US debt to fund Obama's spending of our money, Sperling can just say, "My bad!"

Like he does.

China owns less than 9% of US debt. I'm sorry, you were saying some other things, but I couldn't hear you over the sound of how stupid that deflection is.


And most of the companies that export from China are American owned companies, making the non-threat of THEM SCARY FURRINERS even funnier.
 
2013-02-28 04:00:22 PM
I'm shocked that of the two Woodward threads in the politics tab this morning, the post-Woodward-exposed-as-a-liar thread is actually longer than the pre-Woodward-exposed-as-a-liar.

The derp has gotten so bad that the GOP mouth breathers have forgone their usual "run away when proven to be wrong" modus operandi to continue to run with the lie long after it as been exposed.
 
2013-02-28 04:08:55 PM

FlashHarry: so bob woodward is a proven liar and now has ZERO credibility. that's good to know.


He's gone 5 minutes without attention. He HAD to do something.
 
2013-02-28 04:16:08 PM
What the hell has gotten into him lately anyway? I think perhaps he's just been a Famous Investigative Journalist for waaaaay too long.
 
2013-02-28 04:24:29 PM

max_pooper: The derp has gotten so bad that the GOP mouth breathers have forgone their usual "run away when proven to be wrong" modus operandi to continue to run with the lie long after it as been exposed.


That's because it doesn't matter. "Obama threatens reporters who tell the truth about him" has now become a Real True Fact throughout Greater Wingnuttia. It is, to them, a TRUE THING. It happened. They're not repeating a lie, they're just giving us "yet another example of Zerobama's Chicago-style politics"

Woodwardgate is just another in a long list of disgraceful Obama scandals
 
2013-02-28 04:28:27 PM

dr_blasto: Kangaroo_Ralph: Except now another one of their own is talking about the intimidation coming from the White House.

Dick Morris was a Clinton adviser.


And shortly after he was fired by Clinton for sucking a prostitute's toes he started shilling for the right. He was a Fox News employee until they let him go after the last election. He had been shilling for Romney so badly he actually embarrassed Fox News - ain't that a trip?

Dick Morris has been a favorite on the right for many years, if not actually several decades now.
 
2013-02-28 05:05:37 PM

jjorsett: The good thing about this flap about whether Woodward was threatened or not is that it lets the Democrats avoid having to discuss his main point, which is that the White House is lying about being the architects of the sequester and reneging on its deal with the Republicans.


What point? That it confirms that Woodward is a liar?
 
2013-02-28 05:20:07 PM

mongbiohazard: dr_blasto: Kangaroo_Ralph: Except now another one of their own is talking about the intimidation coming from the White House.

Dick Morris was a Clinton adviser.

And shortly after he was fired by Clinton for sucking a prostitute's toes he started shilling for the right. He was a Fox News employee until they let him go after the last election. He had been shilling for Romney so badly he actually embarrassed Fox News - ain't that a trip?

Dick Morris has been a favorite on the right for many years, if not actually several decades now.


Funny how the "and that guy was a Clinton staffer" argument gets thrown around like it actually means something.
 
2013-02-28 06:05:57 PM

Rwa2play: This; that lot has gone full Black Knight. What the hell are they going to argue now?


It's just a flesh wound.
 
2013-02-28 06:34:57 PM

mksmith: What the hell has gotten into him lately anyway? I think perhaps he's just been a Famous Investigative Journalist for waaaaay too long.


His last book didn't sell as well as he needed it to.  So he's trying to tie a contrived outrage to certain exclusive passages from his book to force publicity.
 
2013-02-28 07:27:20 PM

Fart_Machine: jjorsett: The good thing about this flap about whether Woodward was threatened or not is that it lets the Democrats avoid having to discuss his main point, which is that the White House is lying about being the architects of the sequester and reneging on its deal with the Republicans.

What point? That it confirms that Woodward is a liar?


Like we needed confirmation of that. The William Casey "deathbed confession" was proof enough that he's a lazy, shameless liar. I find it remarkable that anyone takes anything Woodward says seriously. If you actually read the book, he comes across quite badly, really. Which is particularly ironic, since he was a co-author

Frankly, Bernstein should wake up and thank god every morning that his hand-wringing super-pussified partner didn't fark up the entire deal with his shameless bullshiat
 
2013-02-28 08:06:09 PM

danvon: The sad thing is that the story about the threat is out there. The R base has that bit of information squirreled away. So, in about a year, they'll bring it up that Woodward was threatened by the administration as evidence that the President is a dictator, bully, etc. and the fact that there was no "threat" will conveniently slip down the memory hole.


This is probably the one thing that pisses me off the most in modern politics. The misinformation, the smears, the outright lies, they're plastered on the front page of every news organization and yet when the truth comes out, no one pays attention and those stories are quietly buried.

I'll have to ask my boyfriend if his parents have emailed him yet about this "threat" from the White House. They're hardcore conservatives and every time something like this happens in the news, they're so eager to share the original (incorrect) story but never the truth. (Luckily, the boyfriend usually comes to me for the full story because he knows I'm a news junkie and thanks to Fark, I already know the conservative talking points du jour.)
 
2013-02-28 08:36:00 PM

eraser8: unexplained bacon: did you catch the RW reaction to Woodward's claim before and after the text of the email was released?

Read the comments from TFA.

The grassroots teabaggers are doubling down.

The right wingnut bubble has not been burst and will never be burst so long these people refuse to acknowledge any fact that undermines their preconceptions.  They have faith that they're right.  And, faith -- to them -- is worth more than all the facts in the world.


Happened to click the Yahoo article on this; bad decision. Not only did they report that the White House sent the threats, but the comments are full of people demanding to see the e-mails and saying that Fox News was the only one willing to air the contents (since apparently Fox & Friends read the e-mail contents aloud) and a reading of the e-mails proved just what a fascist the occupier in chief is.
 
2013-02-28 08:37:39 PM

I should be in the kitchen: I already know the conservative talking points du jour.)


Yeah. That sometimes gets frustrating because you already know all their BS talking points but if you try to skip through them "You are not listening". So you have to listen to them repeat all the point you already know they are going to make.

It's pretty sad how basically those on the right repeat the talking points and don't actually think for themselves.
 
2013-02-28 08:46:58 PM

yeegrek: I often joke that Republicans are not always the most self-aware bunch, but you might think that after "Friends of Hamas", they might think to look just the tiniest bit beneath the surface on this one, especially since it involved a guy who they hated for decades.  Nope, instead they just dove head-first into the kiddie pool. Again.


Even Uncle Remus couldn't have come up with characters as dumb as these guys.

B'rer Lib: Oh, please, Mr. Republican, sir, please don't stick your dick in that electric fan. That would just so offend my delicate socialist sensibilities Mr. Republican, sir!
 
2013-02-28 09:11:16 PM
The guy yelled at him, then wrote him a fairly passive-aggressive e-mail. On the 1-10 scale of threatening speech, it isn't a 1 or a 10. Woodward seems to have exaggerated a bit, but given the context (being shouted at, then having this e-mail be the follow up), he didn't spin his concern out of whole cloth, either.

It's sort of sad that anyone who stakes positions that aren't 100% in line with that of their perceived allied party face immediate and severe retribution in the form of partisan vitriol hurled at them by loyalists. Political positions being a reflection of loyalties rather than good sense are a reflection of the growing partisan ossification of our political system. I think we will all come to regret that, sooner or later.
 
2013-02-28 09:32:15 PM

Corvus: So you have to listen to them repeat all the point you already know they are going to make.


I usually deal with half of that crap by just asking what precisely they're talking about.

"Obama ordered flags flown at half-staff for that drug addict Whitney Houston but not for American Hero Chris Kyle!"

"Did he? Really? You sure?"

"Never mind."
 
2013-02-28 09:34:07 PM

mrexcess: The guy yelled at him, then wrote him a fairly passive-aggressive e-mail. On the 1-10 scale of threatening speech, it isn't a 1 or a 10. Woodward seems to have exaggerated a bit, but given the context (being shouted at, then having this e-mail be the follow up), he didn't spin his concern out of whole cloth, either.


Did you read Woodward's response?  He certainly didn't take it as passive-aggressive.  Woodward is trying to sell a book.  He's spinning controversy out of whole cloth and you're buying his bullshait.
 
2013-02-28 09:47:43 PM

mrexcess: The guy yelled at him,


The horror!

mrexcess: then wrote him a fairly passive-aggressive e-mail.


Oh, bullshiat. He wrote him an email where he apologized - explicitly and honestly - no less than three times, then advised him "as a friend" that he was acting like a fuching idiot

mrexcess: On the 1-10 scale of threatening speech, it isn't a 1 or a 10


 I agree. On a 1-10 scale of " threatening speech " it's a negative 4

mrexcess: . Woodward seems to have exaggerated a bit,


No, he just lied. Or else he's the bigges farking t pussy   I have ever seen in my life

mrexcess: but given the context


You mean the context of being yelled at at then getting a follow-up email apologizing numerous times for shouting? That context?

mrexcess: , he didn't spin his concern out of whole cloth, either.


Yeah, actually he did. I've read the entire email, and even IN CONTEXT, he's full of shiat

mrexcess: It's sort of sad that anyone who stakes positions that aren't 100% in line with that of their perceived allied party face immediate and severe retribution


It's even sadder that people can read that email and actually be so goddamned partisan, so goddamned opposed to the ni**er-in-chief  that they think its reasonable that anyone with a fourth grade or better education could conceivably view it as a THREAT.

mrexcess: Political positions being a reflection of loyalties rather than good sense are a reflection of the growing partisan ossification of our political system


I agree. And the fact that there is even a single stupid, dishonest douchebag claiming that this incident really was "threatening" is proof of that

It's interesting, you know - we've both been on Fark for a long time and I've always had you marked (in my mind or in my favorites depending on timeframe) as "mostly disagree., but not a douche"  But the fact that you give this story even the SLIGHTEST bit of credence in spite of the evidence makes me think that I have significantly over-estimated your intelligence/honesty/partisanship for all these years
 
2013-02-28 10:27:07 PM
Fart_Machine
Did you read Woodward's response? He certainly didn't take it as passive-aggressive.

If you mean he didn't come out and say, "gee that sure was a passive aggressive e-mail you sent", sure.

Woodward is trying to sell a book. He's spinning controversy out of whole cloth and you're buying his bullshait.

That doesn't pass the sniff test. Who the fark would buy a book because of this? Apart from that, you're trotting out pretty much the first politician PR flack response to anyone who publishes books and then takes issue with people in office.

Ctrl-Alt-Del
The horror!

I'm just saying that it all needs to be taken in context. If I got into a shouting match with a White House staffer, followed up by a passive-aggressive e-mail that talked about how I'd regret taking this or that position, it would feel intimidating. Politicians should not be coming anywhere near the line of intimidating journalists. Heaven knows ours are wussy enough already, lets not give them cause to be even shoddier at their necessarily-adversarial jobs.

You mean the context of being yelled at at then getting a follow-up email apologizing numerous times for shouting?

You take the e-mail as fully sincere. I read it as a bit passive-aggressive. Reasonable people can disagree on this, I suppose.

It's even sadder that people can read that email and actually be so goddamned partisan, so goddamned opposed to the ni**er-in-chief that they think its reasonable that anyone with a fourth grade or better education could conceivably view it as a THREAT.

Look... we've known each other a while, in so far as we've been in threads together going back something like a decade, now. You know that I'm not a partisan, certainly not a partisan Republican, and that I'm pretty far from a racist. "Ni**er-in-chief" is absolutely the furthest thing from my mind when I think of Obama. Can we just deal honestly with the issue at hand and the varying interpretations and opinions on it, instead of accusing each other with knee-jerk insinuations about crypto-racist motivations? Shutting down discussion this way is ridiculous and a page straight out of the Israeli pro-settlement handbook. Everyone who has a problem with the treatment of Palestinians is not an antisemite, and everyone who has a problem with things people in the White House are doing is not a racist.

It's interesting, you know - we've both been on Fark for a long time and I've always had you marked (in my mind or in my favorites depending on timeframe) as "mostly disagree., but not a douche"

Likewise. You're a quality poster. We don't always agree, but I generally respect the rational foundation and well-thought-out quality of what you say.

But the fact that you give this story even the SLIGHTEST bit of credence in spite of the evidence makes me think that I have significantly over-estimated your intelligence/honesty/partisanship for all these years

I'll be the first to say that I don't think this is end-of-the-world type stuff. Frankly I think our time would be better spent discussing stuff like the White House's behavior towards Julian Assange than Bob Woodward. But I assure you, I'm still just here giving my honest opinion. I'm not being dishonest, nor partisan, and just like every other human being around including Woodward, this WH staffer, Obama, and you, I have my dumb moments and my smarter ones. I really don't see why this issue should change your opinion of me, and if it does I guess I regret that but really still don't think I'm wrong.

Mostly though, I'm still lamenting how uncivil we've all become towards each other. Everything is so personal now, so lockstep and rigid, that reasonable discussion of the issues is becoming increasingly impossible. If having a benign opinion about a political issue is all that it takes to sever the bonds of friendship and civility, then it seems safe to conclude that those bonds were never very strong. That much I really do regret, because those bonds underpin not only the relationship between two people talking on some internet wwwsite, but the whole of our rational Democratic Republic. People for whom everything is personal will never successfully manage to hash out complex technical issues.

/typing out line break tags sucks
 
2013-02-28 10:39:06 PM

mrexcess: Mostly though, I'm still lamenting how uncivil we've all become towards each other.


For a guy who calls himself Mr. Excess, you sure are a reasonable motherfarker.
 
2013-02-28 10:46:34 PM
Hey you guys.

Quitcherfussing and pull up some beer.
 
2013-02-28 11:12:41 PM
Phinn: I take that as a supreme compliment... thank you very kindly. It's said that the path of excess leads to the palace of wisdom. Though certainly not yet at that end goal, hopefully I'm at least a few steps into the journey. :)
 
2013-02-28 11:13:34 PM
Kippypie070
*slides a stout on down the table to you*
 
2013-03-01 12:10:10 AM
*squees, happily drinks stout*
 
2013-03-01 12:27:52 AM
mrexcess:
It's sort of sad that anyone who stakes positions that aren't 100% in line with that of their perceived allied party face immediate and severe retribution in the form of partisan vitriol hurled at them by loyalists. Political positions being a reflection of loyalties rather than good sense are a reflection of the growing partisan ossification of our political system.

In broad general principle, I agree there.

 I think we will all come to regret that, sooner or later.

Regret...  gosh, are you threatening me?
 
2013-03-01 01:22:48 AM

mrexcess: If you mean he didn't come out and say, "gee that sure was a passive aggressive e-mail you sent", sure.


Yes, normally when someone feels "threatened" they send a "you don't have to apologize for anything" e-mail in return.

mrexcess: That doesn't pass the sniff test. Who the fark would buy a book because of this? Apart from that, you're trotting out pretty much the first politician PR flack response to anyone who publishes books and then takes issue with people in office.


Not sure if serious.  The whole "story they don't want you to hear" shtick has been around since the birth of PR.  Woodward hasn't been shy about it either.   Who would buy a book?  The Obama Derangement Syndrome folks have their own market.
 
2013-03-01 05:57:37 AM

jjorsett: The good thing about this flap about whether Woodward was threatened or not is that it lets the Democrats avoid having to discuss his main point, which is that the White House is lying about being the architects of the sequester and reneging on its deal with the Republicans.


This.
 
2013-03-01 09:41:56 AM

Ring of Fire: Taylor Mental: Ring of Fire: Lol just looking at google news and the headline from Forbes is "Bob Woodward brings down another president". I clicked the link to see what type of bs Forbes was pushing and low and behold got "oops! We can't seem to find the page you requested"

It not what you're thinking. I read the piece before it got taken down, it was quite sartorial and mocking towards Woodward's claims.Here's the now inoperative link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmcquaid/2013/02/28/bob-woodward-brings -down-another-president/

He (John McQuaid) also has a blog, perhaps he'll post the the article there.

Thanks my bad. Obviously was not able to read the article and assumed it must have been some weapons grade derp that got yanked.

Also this whole thing make Woodward look real bad. The email was clearly saying sorry I got a little hot earlier I still think you are wrong but I'll let you figure that out when you look like an ass hole later. But no hard feelings we can agree to disagree. It was by no means a threat anybody with a brain can see that. The fact that Woodward went on national TV and claims he was threatend in that email make me question his mental state. His own response he basically accepts the apology.


He posted it on HuffPo under a different title, it's quite funny: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-mcquaid/bob-woodward-threat-level_ b _2783077.html
 
Displayed 33 of 433 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report