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 171
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-02-28 10:09:32 AM
6 votes:
so bob woodward is a proven liar and now has ZERO credibility. that's good to know.
2013-02-28 01:43:12 PM
5 votes:
There's really nothing to argue over.  Woodward publicly misrepresented the content of email communication with a government official.  Said government officials publicly released actual emails to show that Woodward was lying.  Woodward has not disputed the truth and accuracy of the emails released.

Woodward was busted lying to the public.

There is objective truth.  This is not spin.
2013-02-28 12:06:10 PM
5 votes:

Brubold: cameroncrazy1984: max_pooper:

So the two of you have somehow managed to ignore our eroding civil liberties during Obama's presidency? His continuation of the Bush era policies that are quickly growing our country into a police state? Random DHS road blocks? TSA molestations? Expansion of warrantless surveillance of US citizens?
...
And of course there are many many more to be found.


Very good.  Now, get to showing the second part of the claim you made- where the left gives him a free pass on these things.

Difficulty: if you're willing to think beyond the level of "they're all over there on that side of the spectrum, so they all think alike," you may discover that his civil liberties stances are one of the things the American left grouses about the most.  (Not to the point of "OMG police state, sky is falling, let's impeach the bastard," no...  But then, you wouldn't expect the left to sound just like the extreme right, either.)  Obama doesn't get a pass on those issues.  He simply gets re-elected, when the alternative is a right-wing president who would most likely continue the exact same policies, and others that left finds disagreeable besides.

There's a collective delusion on the right that the left loves the man.  The left mostly settles for him... and considers him the adult in the room relative to the practical alternative.  "We'll settle for sane" is not "a free pass on everything."  This Woodward email bullshiat- and the right pre-emptively losing their minds over it- is a prime example of why that is.
2013-02-28 10:28:35 AM
5 votes:
It's amazing how quickly you can throw away 40 years of credibility.
2013-02-28 09:58:55 AM
5 votes:
What a bed-wetting pantywaist he's become.
2013-02-28 02:20:50 PM
3 votes:

jjorsett: the architects of the sequester


Bad talking point or worst talking point ever?

/it should really tell you something about 1) what Republicans think about the intelligence of the average American, and 2) after 18 months this is the best plan that they've come up with: blame the White House for an act of Congress, negotiated while Republicans were holding a gun to the figurative head of the global economy, an act that put responsibility/hope of avoiding sequester in Congress' hands, under a Constitution that gives the House the responsibility to initiate spending bills. Pathetic.
//and Woodward jumped the shark with Bush at War.  It's been pretty hard to take him serious about anything since that puff piece since it was painfully obvious that his highest calling is to make money and to hear himself talk
2013-02-28 01:48:20 PM
3 votes:

Zasteva: It's never been racist to oppose Obama. You can oppose Obama without be racist. But racism is still the reason some people oppose him.


What's funny is that for anyone with an IQ higher than a sea slug, that is pretty simple and evident.

Not Racist:  I am irate that the Obama administration seems hell-bent on gutting the 4th amendment, has decided it's easier legally to kill an American citizen that get an arrest warrant for them, and also issue X.

Racist:  Shiftless McGolfeythug wants to give his peeps phones so they don't have to be workin' fo' da man, and his wife needs more collard greens and less chicken. Go back to Kenya.
2013-02-28 12:11:12 PM
3 votes:
Woodward privately:

Gene: You do not ever have to apologize to me....  I also welcome your personal advice. I am listening. I know you lived all this. ...  Best, Bob

Woodward publicly:

THREAT WAS VERY CLEAR
2013-02-28 12:03:55 PM
3 votes:

Brubold: Opinion columns from left-wing sources.


So wait, I thought you said that the left ISN'T critical of Obama's policies?

Well, which is it? Either we're all so enamored with him that we won't admit to anything bad, or we're critical of Obama. Can't be both.
2013-02-28 11:39:48 AM
3 votes:

unexplained bacon: SlothB77: I've exhausted my limited capacities in the other thread.  I have nothing more to add for this thread.  Carry on without me, guys.

limited was a good choice of words I think.

Here's the kind of stuff you added to the last thread...before the email text was posted:

...And Obama wouldn't be threatening Woodward if he wasn't on to something.  This is worse than Benghazi.  This could lead to more Benghazi's.  Intentionally trying to bring harm to this country and its citizens.


after the email was posted you changed the subject. Guess we'll have to carry on without you.


You forgot that he also said Nixon was impeached and that Obama should ignore Congress and the Constitution (effectively) and prioritize spending himself.
2013-02-28 11:35:47 AM
3 votes:

Brubold: cameroncrazy1984: Brubold: Seems to me that liberals have been more into the holodeck during Obama's presidency. It's a nice way to pretend the bad stuff he's doing doesn't exist.

Examples, please.

Are you asking me for examples of the bad stuff? If you are then you've just proven my point because you've obviously been ignoring all of it in order to justify your support of Obama.


Oh yes, any of it. All of it that has been in front of you all this time.
2013-02-28 11:10:52 AM
3 votes:

JerseyTim: I can't tell which side you think I'm on.


I don't especially think you're on either side, I just think you and JunkyJu are being completely unrelated to the topic at hand. What does a blog post about potential ambassador choices have to do with Woodward's lies?

GAT_00: It's amazing how quickly you can throw away 40 years of credibility.


a.abcnews.com
2013-02-28 11:07:30 AM
3 votes:

SlothB77: I've exhausted my limited capacities in the other thread.  I have nothing more to add for this thread.  Carry on without me, guys.


limited was a good choice of words I think.

Here's the kind of stuff you added to the last thread...before the email text was posted:

...And Obama wouldn't be threatening Woodward if he wasn't on to something.  This is worse than Benghazi.  This could lead to more Benghazi's.  Intentionally trying to bring harm to this country and its citizens.


after the email was posted you changed the subject. Guess we'll have to carry on without you.
2013-02-28 10:51:42 AM
3 votes:

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

/expected


It's hard to spin something when the FULL TEXT OF THE EMAIL was released.  You know, the email to which Woodward responded with:

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

Does that sound like someone who honestly thought he was just threatened?
2013-02-28 10:50:30 AM
3 votes:

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

/expected


Only the mind of the derpiest mouth breathers is releasing facts "spin."

It turns out Bob Woodward is a farking liar, and a bad one at that. How did he think he could get away with this bullshiat? Does he not know that e-mails are pretty much a permanent record? Did he think he could just float this lie out there and the evidence proving it a lie would never come out?

I wonder if Breitbart.com has made him an offer yet.
2013-02-28 10:44:35 AM
3 votes:

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

/expected


"Spin" being releasing the full text of the email.
2013-02-28 10:40:38 AM
3 votes:
Wild spacing

                                in a Fark post


study it out                                                       best part,


                forever
2013-02-28 10:37:14 AM
3 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: Bob Woodward trolled us (and we got played)


Wow, what a surprisingly self-aware article by the Tucker Carlson brigade.
2013-02-28 10:32:57 AM
3 votes:

SlothB77: I've exhausted my limited capacities in the other thread.  I have nothing more to add for this thread.  Carry on without me, guys.


Congratulations, you've reached "acceptance"
2013-02-28 03:36:48 PM
2 votes:

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.


IDGAF who the "architect" was, the GOP used it as a selling point just as much as the Dems, then the "supercomittee" abjectly failed in the task. Regardless of where the blame goes, everyone agrees that it's a bad thing, yet the House wont pass a bill (all spending bills must originate in the house) to stop this idiocy from happening. Let's also not forget that the GOP reneged too, and that they aren't simply seeking the 2:1 cuts to revenue ratio that was offered before. They did a shiatty job negotiating themselves into a corner because they thought they'd be dealing with President Romney right about now, and they're being a bunch of pouty biatches who want to implement all the Romney cuts balancing the budget on the backs of the poor that voters overwhelmingly rejected back in November.
2013-02-28 03:20:04 PM
2 votes:

skullkrusher: cameroncrazy1984: Rann Xerox: [READS "THREATENING" E-MAIL]

I hope my wife and daughter threaten me like this the next time I leave the toilet seat up.

Why do they care? Do they walk into the bathroom backwards with their pants down and hope?

My wife claims that it's a problem when she gets up to use the bathroom in the middle of the night and doesn't turn the light on. I mean, having a baby is expensive and all but we can afford to turn the bathroom light on for 30 seconds I think


It's not the power bill, it's the "oh god the light it burns dear god why did I turn the lights on aaargh" problem.  Personally I always put the seat and the lid down because it just seems unkempt and sloppy not to, and considering what a filthy bastard I am, that's saying something.
2013-02-28 02:50:10 PM
2 votes:

Kangaroo_Ralph: Sperling emailed Woodward to apologize for the tone of his original conversation.

I'm betting most of you knee-jerkers would have construed the original conversation as threatening.


did you read Woodward's email back to him? you really should if not.

sorta destroys the line you're going with here.

/talk about a knee-jerker
2013-02-28 02:25:16 PM
2 votes:

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.


ahem:THERE WOULD BE NO SEQUESTER IF REPUBLICANS HADN'T TAKEN AMERICA'S CREDIT HOSTAGE IN THE SUMMER OF 2011.
2013-02-28 01:50:42 PM
2 votes:

Brubold: cameroncrazy1984: Brubold: cameroncrazy1984: max_pooper:

So the two of you have somehow managed to ignore our eroding civil liberties during Obama's presidency? His continuation of the Bush era policies that are quickly growing our country into a police state? Random DHS road blocks? TSA molestations? Expansion of warrantless surveillance of US citizens?

I'll just leave these here -

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/16/us/politics/16obama.html?_r=1&hp

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/theres-no-room-f or -civil-liberties-in-obamas-inauguration-view-of-america/267422/

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/obama_signs_ndaa_again/

And of course there are many many more to be found.

I like how all three of those are opinion columns.

Opinion columns from left-wing sources. I specifically sought them out figuring you idiots would consider them acceptable sources because of how quickly you run to the narrative of the source being the problem. I guess I was wrong. There's no source you'll hesitate to disregard if they go after Obama.


It's awesome that even after this post you still don't even realize that your links utterly demolish the notion that liberals don't criticize Obama. You made an argument, and they destroyed very your own argument. Great work.
2013-02-28 01:50:40 PM
2 votes:
Brubold:

Obama has been so spoiled by favorable coverage that he loses it when a respectable journalist goes after him for a lie or for a bad policy.

So this is the second time you've claimed the media is baised towards Obama ... by quoting media sources criticizing Obama.

You're still ignoring being called out on the first time - where you claimed the left didn't criticize Obama's policies, by linking to a bunch of liberal opinion pieces ... criticizing Obama's policies.  Are you going to answer to that?
2013-02-28 01:49:57 PM
2 votes:

Brubold: Obama has been so spoiled by favorable coverage that he loses it when a respectable journalist goes after him for a lie or for a bad policy.


Meanwhile you feel free to keep telling obvious lies even when it's obvious that:

1) Obama had nothing to do with the "threat"

2) The "threat" was actually a very nice apology

3) The Woodward responded to the "threat" by saying he welcomed the heat and there was no apology required.

If you are genuinely confused about any of this then please raise issues and I'll be happy to respond politely and without anything that could be perceived as a threat, not even by Woodward.
2013-02-28 01:39:50 PM
2 votes:

hasty ambush: cameroncrazy1984: hasty ambush: So has the left decided to call Woodward a racist yet?  Isn't that one of the standard responses to anyone who dares to not kneel and worship at Obama's feet.

Nah, he's just an idiot and a liar. You mad that it turned out that way?

So you are saying that now it isn't racist to oppose Obama?


It's never been racist to oppose Obama. You can oppose Obama without be racist. But racism is still the reason some people oppose him.

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x566]

You know, when you put quotes around something, that means the person actually said that. When you put quotes around something someone didn't say, that crosses over from mockery to  lying.
2013-02-28 01:03:33 PM
2 votes:

JerseyTim: If a senior admin official had sent that email to Bob Woodward when I was press sec, that someone would have to meet me out on west exec.- Dana Perino (@DanaPerino) February 28, 2013


Am I crazy or is that what a threat actually sounds like?


Man, if she's that up in arms over an email like this, imagine how upset she'd be if a senior admin official had outed a CIA operative for political gain......
2013-02-28 12:51:06 PM
2 votes:

If a senior admin official had sent that email to Bob Woodward when I was press sec, that someone would have to meet me out on west exec.

- Dana Perino (@DanaPerino) February 28, 2013



Am I crazy or is that what a threat actually sounds like?
2013-02-28 12:42:31 PM
2 votes:

Fluorescent Testicle: JerseyTim: Prior to 2008, ambassadors were chosen in a national search for the best and brightest and chosen by merit only.

You're not very good at derpstraction. For future reference, you might have better luck with "Look over there, Elvis is farking Marilyn Monroe up the ass and she loves it!" It'd be just as related and far more interesting.


I'm pretty sure JerseyTim was being sarcastic.
2013-02-28 12:27:01 PM
2 votes:

hasty ambush: So has the left decided to call Woodward a racist yet?  Isn't that one of the standard responses to anyone who dares to not kneel and worship at Obama's feet.


Nah, he's just an idiot and a liar. You mad that it turned out that way?
2013-02-28 12:26:14 PM
2 votes:
Wow, it's like every shiatty account from the 2008 election just got reactivated
2013-02-28 12:07:40 PM
2 votes:

Brubold: cameroncrazy1984: Brubold: cameroncrazy1984: max_pooper:

So the two of you have somehow managed to ignore our eroding civil liberties during Obama's presidency? His continuation of the Bush era policies that are quickly growing our country into a police state? Random DHS road blocks? TSA molestations? Expansion of warrantless surveillance of US citizens?

I'll just leave these here -

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/16/us/politics/16obama.html?_r=1&hp

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/theres-no-room-f or -civil-liberties-in-obamas-inauguration-view-of-america/267422/

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/obama_signs_ndaa_again/

And of course there are many many more to be found.

I like how all three of those are opinion columns.

Opinion columns from left-wing sources. I specifically sought them out figuring you idiots would consider them acceptable sources because of how quickly you run to the narrative of the source being the problem. I guess I was wrong. There's no source you'll hesitate to disregard if they go after Obama.


So opinion columns from left wing sources criticizing Obama's action are somehow proof that liberals refuse to criticize those actions?
2013-02-28 12:01:22 PM
2 votes:

Brubold: cameroncrazy1984: max_pooper:

So the two of you have somehow managed to ignore our eroding civil liberties during Obama's presidency? His continuation of the Bush era policies that are quickly growing our country into a police state? Random DHS road blocks? TSA molestations? Expansion of warrantless surveillance of US citizens?

I'll just leave these here -

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/16/us/politics/16obama.html?_r=1&hp

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/theres-no-room-f or -civil-liberties-in-obamas-inauguration-view-of-america/267422/

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/obama_signs_ndaa_again/

And of course there are many many more to be found.


Let's just get this out of the way: you are completely correct on those points.

However, they have absolutely zero, zilch, null set, nada, nothing, to do with this subject.

You are obvious. Stop threadjacking and stay on topic.
2013-02-28 12:00:36 PM
2 votes:

Brubold: You have to account for the context of the story. The email was sent after the guy yelled at Woodward for 1/2 an hour according to Woodward. After you just went through that, wouldn't it be possible to take a statement like "you'll regret it" as a threat even if it was surrounded by apologetic tones?


Apparently not, as Woodward sent a reply that said "you don't need to apologize to me" and called him his "friend."

Are you SURE you read the entire context of the story?
2013-02-28 11:56:22 AM
2 votes:

Brubold: So the two of you have somehow managed to ignore

...


speaking of ignore, did you read the email?

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

seems like you want to change the subject...but why?
2013-02-28 11:54:38 AM
2 votes:

Brubold: Philip Francis Queeg: 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

Deflectors to maximum, Captain!

Seems to me that liberals have been more into the holodeck during Obama's presidency. It's a nice way to pretend the bad stuff he's doing doesn't exist.


See the link next to the headline? Click it and then read. In this case, as it is for MANY of the other supposed "outrages" of the Obama administration, the "bad stuff he's doing" LITERALLY does not exist. This whole story about the threats was a lie. That's not to say the Obama administration has nothing we can criticize it for, but the legitimate gripes are far less pruriently partisan.

Click the link, read, think - and then become more enlightened. Or you can keep jerking that knee and spreading lies like a moron. Your call, really.
2013-02-28 11:41:10 AM
2 votes:

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.


Do you think Woodward was threatened in that email?

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.

Did you read the email in which Woodward claims he was threatened? do you think he was threatened?

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


Yes there's a burgeoning police state in the same way that Woodward was threatened in that email...
the email you're apparently trying not to talk about...the email that's the subject of this thread. The thread you're apparently hoping to derail.
2013-02-28 11:38:59 AM
2 votes:

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

Congress sets spending levels.

How many times did you say this when people other than Obama were president?  Provide links, please.


How many times did you forget who sets spending levels when people other than Obama were president?
2013-02-28 11:36:04 AM
2 votes:

Brubold: cameroncrazy1984: Brubold: Seems to me that liberals have been more into the holodeck during Obama's presidency. It's a nice way to pretend the bad stuff he's doing doesn't exist.

Examples, please.

Are you asking me for examples of the bad stuff? If you are then you've just proven my point because you've obviously been ignoring all of it in order to justify your support of Obama.


So you got nothing? I would have thought you would at least throw out a "Benghazi" or two.
2013-02-28 11:27:34 AM
2 votes:

netcentric: I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post.I think you will regret staking out that claim Not out to argue and argue on this latter point. Just my sincere advice.You do not ever have to apologize to me. You get wound up....


Ohhhhhh....so they were veiled threats.   Hidden in a psuedo politicking email.    Or you could say a veiled apology.
Gee....I wonder what he is apologizing for ???    Something the WH said in the phone call...?
Hmmmm.....     a heated phone call.    But nobody threatened anyone.  Nope.   The apology was for nothing.


While I sincerely hope you recover from you stroke, I want to thank you for inspiring me to reread some E.E. Cummings with my morning coffee.

I might have to start more days like this. Again, thank you.
2013-02-28 11:23:12 AM
2 votes:

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


Deflectors to maximum, Captain!
2013-02-28 10:56:44 AM
2 votes:
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"
2013-02-28 10:49:37 AM
2 votes:
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.
2013-02-28 10:43:31 AM
2 votes:
This is Obama's Benghazi.
2013-02-28 10:43:20 AM
2 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: Bob Woodward trolled us (and we got played)


Ha.

Was it Redstate that recently ran an editorial about hucksters just using the conservative movement to sell books and boost their career/media profile?
2013-02-28 10:35:29 AM
2 votes:
2013-02-28 10:35:00 AM
2 votes:
I guess it's worth keeping mind most beltway insiders are psychopaths that will say or do anything to promote themselves or their ideology at the expense of truth to massage the gears of power.  Can't help feeling a little depressed at how transparent and pathetic this effort is tho.  The republic is a mess and the 4th estate is infested with rats.
2013-02-28 10:34:58 AM
2 votes:
You can tell how threatened he felt by his reply.
2013-02-28 10:34:45 AM
2 votes:

Kaeishiwaza: Really?  This is the threatening letter?

Mr. Woodward seems to be pushing an agenda at the cost of reality.


That's why we're pretty sure he's auditioning for a job at Fox News.
2013-02-28 10:27:19 AM
2 votes:
I think everything you need to know here is the fact that Woodward has decided to go on Hannity tonight to talk about this.
2013-02-28 10:25:49 AM
2 votes:
Why would Woodward lie about this? Follow the money.
2013-02-28 10:14:04 AM
2 votes:

make me some tea: Come on, Bob, you're better than this.


No... no he isn't.
2013-02-28 10:01:00 AM
2 votes:
So then, wtf is he making this big deal about being "threatened", then? That's not a threat, it sounds more like advice. Come on, Bob, you're better than this.
2013-02-28 09:47:43 PM
1 votes:

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 04:28:27 PM
1 votes:

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 04:00:22 PM
1 votes:
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 03:25:04 PM
1 votes:

Kangaroo_Ralph: Sperling emailed Woodward to apologize for the tone of his original conversation.

I'm betting most of you knee-jerkers would have construed the original conversation as threatening.


If we did, why would we describe the language from the apology note as the threatening stuff instead?

Why not piss our pants like normal conservatives because some staffer raised his voice at me for saying stupid shiat?
2013-02-28 03:15:46 PM
1 votes:

Kangaroo_Ralph: Sperling emailed Woodward to apologize for the tone of his original conversation.

I'm betting most of you knee-jerkers would have construed the original conversation as threatening.


where'd you go?

are you reading Woodward's emails, realizing you were duped?
will you adhere to the disproven BS you came in here with and take to a site with less facts where you can be outraged in peace?
2013-02-28 03:14:36 PM
1 votes:

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 .


Wait, Lanny Davis also received a completely non-threatening email from Gene Sperling? Wow. Tell us more
2013-02-28 03:12:16 PM
1 votes:

whcrow: Woodward and now

...


what happened with Woodward?

oh right, nothing at all.
what's that? you've got another completely unsubstantiated claim to add to the one that was completely debunked just this morning?

/proceed
2013-02-28 03:06:19 PM
1 votes:

FlashHarry: 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.

ahem:THERE WOULD BE NO SEQUESTER IF REPUBLICANS HADN'T TAKEN AMERICA'S CREDIT HOSTAGE IN THE SUMMER OF 2011.


They're all hypocrites, but one stands above the rest.

thinkprogress.org

1. Helped make the sequester happen. Ryan was among the Republicans leading demands for spending cuts to offset a debt ceiling increase in the summer of 2011, and was among the leaders who refused to consider new revenues in those negotiations. Had Republicans not refused to raise the debt ceiling in the first place, the sequester wouldn't exist.

2. Voted for plan to create the sequester, then bragged about it. Ryan took credit for the sequester in August 2011, bragging to Fox News that it guaranteed the massive budget cuts Republicans were seeking. "We got that in law," he boasted. On the House floor, he said the Budget Control Act's spending cuts were "a victory for those committed to controlling government spending."

3. Called the sequester "devastating" during the presidential election. Ryan blasted Obama for wanting the sequester's "devastating defense cuts" to take place during the presidential election, when he was the GOP's vice presidential candidate.

4. Blamed the likelihood of the sequester occurring on Obama. The sequester "will probably occur" because "the president has not a proposal yet on the table," Ryan told CBS News last week. "Don't forget it's the president who first proposed the sequester. It's the president who designed the sequester as it is now designed," he added.

5. Will include sequester cuts in his latest budget.


http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/02/15/1599681/paul-ryan-seques te r-position/
2013-02-28 03:04:02 PM
1 votes:
I think the RW has been taken so far down into this RW fantasyland that feel absolutely certain that Obama is some sort of monster on the verge of unveiling his evil plot.

At the first whiff of some perceived proof of their preconceived narrative they just go nuts without thinking for even a moment. If that gets shot down they don't stop and think about how they were just pulled into such idiocy, they just cast their eyes to the horizon waiting for that ship to come in.

poor little fellas.
2013-02-28 03:01:51 PM
1 votes:

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Brubold: If you want to interpret it that way, that's fine. Oh you may want to look into this as a sort of pattern of behavior for the Obama WH.

http://www.wmal.com/common/page.php?pt=WMAL+EXCLUSIVE%3A+Woodward%27 s+ Not+Alone+-+Fmr.+Clinton+Aide+Davis+Says+He+Received+White+House+Threa t&id=8924&is_corp=0

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/02/28/obama-woodward-whit e- house/1953105/

"All we can say is: We know more than a few reporters have received similar e-mails from White House officials. Yelling has also been known to happen."

OMG - yelling? How ever do those reporters make it through the day in the face of such egregiously threatening behavior? And I thought crab fishermen had it tough



Its the same bullshiat that I go through in my office. When other people raise their voices at co-workers or say things that are considered stern or direct, they're considered people who don't take shiat. When I do it, is considered "anger".


/Black people problems
2013-02-28 02:57:50 PM
1 votes:

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Kangaroo_Ralph: Sperling emailed Woodward to apologize for the tone of his original conversation.

I'm betting most of you knee-jerkers would have construed the original conversation as threatening.

So the email that he claimed contained a threat didn't actually contain anything even remotely resembling a threat, so therefore some prior conversation that he never claimed was threatening must have been?

[i210.photobucket.com image 310x232]
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect


desperation must cause brain rot.
look at the RWers reacting to this, it's ridiculous.

-look! the WH threatened Woodward in an email! Woodward said so.

-oh the email doesn't contain a threat? oh the reply from Woodward was friendly and without mention of feeling threatened at all?

-well there must be something....uh...look another unsubstantiated claim!

-wolf! there's wolves everywhere...IT'S A STRAIGHT UP WOLF ATTACK!!...THE WOLVES KNOW KUNG FOO!!!...LOOK! EVERYONE LOOK!

-nope it's nothing
2013-02-28 02:52:50 PM
1 votes:

Kangaroo_Ralph: Sperling emailed Woodward to apologize for the tone of his original conversation.

I'm betting most of you knee-jerkers would have construed the original conversation as threatening.


So the email that he claimed contained a threat didn't actually contain anything even remotely resembling a threat, so therefore some prior conversation that he never claimed was threatening must have been?

i210.photobucket.com
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect
2013-02-28 02:51:10 PM
1 votes:

Kangaroo_Ralph: Sperling emailed Woodward to apologize for the tone of his original conversation.

I'm betting most of you knee-jerkers would have construed the original conversation as threatening.


Woodward said there was no need for an apology, so he didn't.
2013-02-28 02:49:27 PM
1 votes:
For the record, this is how you threaten someone:

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. Because if you don't, I will have the president f*cking murder you. (That's in bold so you understand we're serious.)

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

P.S. Seriously I will have it look like it did when we murdered David Carradine, choking yourself to death while masturbating to erotic Smurf cartoons. You don't mess with the POTUS, brah.
2013-02-28 02:41:48 PM
1 votes:

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


c481901.r1.cf2.rackcdn.com

oh ah, one more thing, from the article you linked to (not the first time this crap made the rounds on fark today btw) please direct your attention to the part that I've bolded:

WASHINGTON -- Bob Woodward isn't the only person who's received threats for airing the Obama administration's dirty laundry.

Bob Woodward did not receive any threats...

/helluva scoop you got there
2013-02-28 02:36:55 PM
1 votes:

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


another one? you mean in addition to Woodward? who wasn't actually threatened at all?

you fellas might want to hold up and wait for something verifiable before crying wolf....again.
2013-02-28 02:32:18 PM
1 votes:

FlashHarry: 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.

ahem:THERE WOULD BE NO SEQUESTER IF REPUBLICANS HADN'T TAKEN AMERICA'S CREDIT HOSTAGE IN THE SUMMER OF 2011.


There wouldn't be any sequester NOW if the house would just do it's job.  They have zero plans approved and zero upcoming votes on any plan.  They are intentionally letting the sequester happen and making no effort to avoid it.
2013-02-28 02:31:39 PM
1 votes:

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


Difficulty: Woodward wasn't threatened
2013-02-28 02:21:07 PM
1 votes:

Philip Francis Queeg: FlashHarry: A) not even mitt romney's top advisor thinks the media was "in the tank" for obama

To be fair, having been Romney's top adviser does give cause to question his judgement.


fair point.

however:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/01/business/media/challenging-the-cla im s-of-media-bias-the-media-equation.html?_r=2&;
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/23/media-favored-romne y- over-obama-during-gop-primaries-study.html
http://www.journalism.org/node/26958

actual studies show that the media has been in fact rather anti-obama.

the only reason the right screams "BIAS" is that they're so frequently in the wrong, the media can't help but call them out on it sometimes.
2013-02-28 02:19:01 PM
1 votes:

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.


Woodward said he was threatened, but he very clearly was not (you disagree?).

given the topic of this thread (Woodward's threat claim) and the fact that there are actual threads up now in which the sequestration is on topic. It seems that it is you who are looking to avoid the "main point".

it's ok, every single RWer before you did the same.
2013-02-28 02:14:25 PM
1 votes:

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.


Well except for the fact that "the White House is lying about being the architects of the sequester and reneging on its deal with the Republicans" is probably just as big a lie as the "threat".

It doesn't surprise me that the GOP water carriers don't understand the lessons of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".
2013-02-28 02:14:06 PM
1 votes:

Brubold: Obama has been so spoiled by favorable coverage that he loses it when a respectable journalist goes after him for a lie or for a bad policy.


A) not even mitt romney's top advisor thinks the media was "in the tank" for obama
B) woodward is the one who lied here
2013-02-28 02:04:50 PM
1 votes:
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?
2013-02-28 02:00:46 PM
1 votes:

Brubold:
Opinion columns from left-wing sources.


What a great way to prove that the left is ignoring these issues.
2013-02-28 02:00:23 PM
1 votes:

Glenford: Yea, amazing how he makes a fool of himself and just as the thread is posted with how it was a lie, he conviently leaves. He could have at least attempted to threadjack with the race bullshiat like his idiot ilk.

Given the number of new 'piss yellow' tags I've managed to add from this thread, maybe he didn't actually leave.


piss yellow, huh? I prefer butt-hurt red for that sort myself.

In Sloth's favor, he did twice admit to mistakes in that other thread. I personally would rather praise him when he does the right thing than keep whacking him with a rolled up newspaper for what he did wrong a while ago.

/I keep the newspaper handy just in case.
2013-02-28 01:50:36 PM
1 votes:
I think Woodward is going to regret claiming that he was threatened.

//not intended as a threat
2013-02-28 01:50:34 PM
1 votes:

Brubold: Obama has been so spoiled by favorable coverage that he loses it when a respectable journalist goes after him for a lie or for a bad policy.


What "lie" or "bad policy" did Woodward go after him for, exactly?  All I recall is Woodward ranting about Obama letting little things like "separation of powers" and "the Constitution" stand in his way.

/I can't wait to hear this.
2013-02-28 01:43:41 PM
1 votes:

Zasteva: You know, when you put quotes around something, that means the person actually said that. When you put quotes around something someone didn't say, that crosses over from mockery to  lying.


Well this story proves that this isn't a big problem with these people
2013-02-28 01:36:26 PM
1 votes:
What a disaster of a thread.
2013-02-28 01:32:06 PM
1 votes:

Brubold: Obama has been so spoiled by favorable coverage that he loses it when a respectable journalist goes after him for a lie or for a bad policy.


I think the only person who looks stupider than Bob Woodward in this incident is you. But Hannity might give you a run for your money later on tonight.
2013-02-28 01:31:46 PM
1 votes:

Phinn: Philip Francis Queeg: Sometimes mandatory retirement ages look like a sensible policy. This is one of those times. Woodward is clearly slipping.

Woodward is younger than Biden.


Woodward doesn't have a biatchin' Trans Am.

unexplained bacon: Phinn: You're right. Presidents are ineffectual, meaningless, uninvolved bystanders in all governmental spending matters, and therefore devoid of responsibility for any fiscal occurrences during their tenure.

now RWers have sunk to having entire conversations outside of reality.

/I give it a week before they're making race cars out of their poop.


Not until they can figure out how to stop them from making a left turn at the end of the straightaway.
2013-02-28 01:26:32 PM
1 votes:

Brubold: Fart_Machine: 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

You can stop carrying water now that they released the content of the letter. It just makes you look like a pathetic shill.

If you want to interpret it that way, that's fine. Oh you may want to look into this as a sort of pattern of behavior for the Obama WH.

http://www.wmal.com/common/page.php?pt=WMAL+EXCLUSIVE%3A+Woodward%27 s+ Not+Alone+-+Fmr.+Clinton+Aide+Davis+Says+He+Received+White+House+Threa t&id=8924&is_corp=0

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/02/28/obama-woodward-whit e- house/1953105/

"All we can say is: We know more than a few reporters have received similar e-mails from White House officials. Yelling has also been known to happen."

The quote is from the second link and was written before the content of the emails was released. So they wrote it when they thought the email was a definite threat.

Obama has been so spoiled by favorable coverage that he loses it when a respectable journalist goes after him for a lie or for a bad policy.


Wow an "exclusive" from a guy who has no proof it actually happend but just decided to make a claim right after Woodward threw his tantrum. Seems legit.
2013-02-28 01:23:37 PM
1 votes:

Brubold: "All we can say is: We know more than a few reporters have received similar e-mails from White House officials.


Polite apologies that the recipient thanks them for and insists there's nothing to apologize for?
2013-02-28 01:23:31 PM
1 votes:

Brubold: Fart_Machine: 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

You can stop carrying water now that they released the content of the letter. It just makes you look like a pathetic shill.

If you want to interpret it that way, that's fine. Oh you may want to look into this as a sort of pattern of behavior for the Obama WH.

http://www.wmal.com/common/page.php?pt=WMAL+EXCLUSIVE%3A+Woodward%27 s+ Not+Alone+-+Fmr.+Clinton+Aide+Davis+Says+He+Received+White+House+Threa t&id=8924&is_corp=0

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/02/28/obama-woodward-whit e- house/1953105/

"All we can say is: We know more than a few reporters have received similar e-mails from White House officials. Yelling has also been known to happen."

The quote is from the second link and was written before the content of the emails was released. So they wrote it when they thought the email was a definite threat.

Obama has been so spoiled by favorable coverage that he loses it when a respectable journalist goes after him for a lie or for a bad policy.


Oh my gosh, yelling? Unheard of.
2013-02-28 01:19:03 PM
1 votes:

hasty ambush: So you are saying that now it isn't racist to oppose Obama?


Poor you. So angry.. Remind me, why do I have you labelled in my favorites as "Michelle Obama Hamburger Hater"? Cause that has to be a more interesting story than this current OMG RACE CARD idiocy
2013-02-28 01:12:14 PM
1 votes:

hasty ambush: So you are saying that now it isn't racist to oppose Obama?


You're still a racist. Don't worry.
2013-02-28 01:11:30 PM
1 votes:

gilgigamesh: JusticeandIndependence: I've received a timeout for less.

I'm not one to go screaming to the Modmins, but yeah, on several occasions I've gotten posts zapped that were far less egregious than this line of blatant deflection.


Probably best to report it as a mod might not come into this thread. If not, ignore worked. Its nice when a user admits that their opinion is worthless and they shouldnt be added to a debate.
2013-02-28 01:11:00 PM
1 votes:

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


You can stop carrying water now that they released the content of the letter. It just makes you look like a pathetic shill.
2013-02-28 01:08:09 PM
1 votes:

hasty ambush: So you are saying that now it isn't racist to oppose Obama?


I think thats wrong.

2.bp.blogspot.com
2013-02-28 01:05:16 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-02-28 01:01:46 PM
1 votes:

JerseyTim: If a senior admin official had sent that email to Bob Woodward when I was press sec, that someone would have to meet me out on west exec.- Dana Perino (@DanaPerino) February 28, 2013


Am I crazy or is that what a threat actually sounds like?


Apparently apologizing was unacceptable to her.
2013-02-28 01:00:32 PM
1 votes:

Rwa2play: Biological Ali: Wow. 0bama explicitly threatens to murder the entire family of a journalist who dared to criticize him and you libs think it's no big deal. Wow. Just wow.

1/10.  C'mon man, even for a troll, that's a lazy farking effort.


I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm, not trolling.
2013-02-28 12:55:54 PM
1 votes:

firefly212: I love how CNN is still running with the story, now they're portraying WH officials as dismissive and uncaring about the threats in their responses to the full email, but CNN isn't actually releasing the full emails as part of the story. CNN=Fox Light.


CNN stopped being credible the moment Turner got bought out by Time Warner.
2013-02-28 12:52:38 PM
1 votes:

FlashHarry: tallguywithglasseson: Woodward privately:

Gene: You do not ever have to apologize to me....  I also welcome your personal advice. I am listening. I know you lived all this. ...  Best, Bob

Woodward publicly:

THREAT WAS VERY CLEAR

what farking slime.


Yep, pretty much.  He just took a dump on whatever was left of his credibility.
2013-02-28 12:51:36 PM
1 votes:

max_pooper: I've seen this happen before as well. It's usually a massive attention whore trying to make a scene.


Or a douchebag football player trying to get an opponent red-carded. That's what this is really about - manufacturing scandals out of nothing to hurt the opposing team. Benghazi is starting lose its steam, so the douchebags have to start trying to gin up a new one.
2013-02-28 12:49:56 PM
1 votes:

unexplained bacon: Phinn: You're right. Presidents are ineffectual, meaningless, uninvolved bystanders in all governmental spending matters, and therefore devoid of responsibility for any fiscal occurrences during their tenure.

now RWers have sunk to having entire conversations outside of reality.


Heh; how do you think they convinced themselves that Romney was going to win on Election Night? :D
2013-02-28 12:43:56 PM
1 votes:

firefly212: I love how CNN is still running with the story, now they're portraying WH officials as dismissive and uncaring about the threats in their responses to the full email, but CNN isn't actually releasing the full emails as part of the story. CNN=Fox Light.


Jeff Zucker's vision in action. Ratings will continue to tank.
2013-02-28 12:41:49 PM
1 votes:
I love how CNN is still running with the story, now they're portraying WH officials as dismissive and uncaring about the threats in their responses to the full email, but CNN isn't actually releasing the full emails as part of the story. CNN=Fox Light.
2013-02-28 12:33:43 PM
1 votes:

Brubold: cameroncrazy1984: max_pooper:

So the two of you have somehow managed to ignore our eroding civil liberties during Obama's presidency? His continuation of the Bush era policies that are quickly growing our country into a police state? Random DHS road blocks? TSA molestations? Expansion of warrantless surveillance of US citizens?
I'll just leave these here -
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/16/us/politics/16obama.html?_r=1&hp
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/theres-no-room-f or -civil-liberties-in-obamas-inauguration-view-of-america/267422/
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/obama_signs_ndaa_again/
And of course there are many many more to be found.


You left out Chemtrails, U.N. Bases in National Parks, FEMA Detention Camps, Death Panels and Kenya.
2013-02-28 12:33:23 PM
1 votes:
img203.imageshack.us
2013-02-28 12:32:47 PM
1 votes:
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

These are not the words of somebody who feels threatened.
2013-02-28 12:32:14 PM
1 votes:

hasty ambush: So has the left decided to call Woodward a racist yet?  Isn't that one of the standard responses to anyone who dares to not kneel and worship at Obama's feet.


You really are the biggest crybaby on fark.
2013-02-28 12:31:50 PM
1 votes:
So has the left decided to call Woodward a racist yet?  Isn't that one of the standard responses to anyone who dares to not kneel and worship at Obama's feet.

God damn I wish I was allowed to say what I actually think of "people" who post things like this
2013-02-28 12:30:19 PM
1 votes:

hasty ambush: So has the left decided to call Woodward a racist yet?  Isn't that one of the standard responses to anyone who dares to not kneel and worship at Obama's feet.


nope just an idiot

false persecution complex is false
2013-02-28 12:28:44 PM
1 votes:

hasty ambush: So has the left decided to call Woodward a racist yet?  Isn't that one of the standard responses to anyone who dares to not kneel and worship at Obama's feet.


No, that is just the voices in your head.
2013-02-28 12:27:10 PM
1 votes:

hasty ambush: So has the left decided to call Woodward a racist yet?  Isn't that one of the standard responses to anyone who dares to not kneel and worship at Obama's feet.


You ok, little buddy? You seem kind of tired. Is it depression?
2013-02-28 12:15:30 PM
1 votes:
Man this whole story is so goddamn stupid. The worst part is it's not gonna go away because Fox News won't report this and no one at FreeRepublic or the other 50,000 derp sites will ever see it. And even if they do they won't care because it fits so nicely into their "Obama's a thug" narrative.

I bet two years from now my derpy cousins and aunts and uncles will be at the family Christmas party and still OUTRAGED about the time Obama personally threatened to kill Bob Woodward.
2013-02-28 12:14:45 PM
1 votes:
Manufactured butthurt.
2013-02-28 12:11:39 PM
1 votes:

Philip Francis Queeg: So opinion columns from left wing sources criticizing Obama's action are somehow proof that liberals refuse to criticize those actions?


You have to study it out.
2013-02-28 12:10:49 PM
1 votes:
Right now G. Gordon Liddy is thinking "You mean I could have just kneecapped that SOB and shut the whole thing down? Dammit."
2013-02-28 12:09:56 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-02-28 12:05:51 PM
1 votes:

JusticeandIndependence: Interesting that CNN.com has the initial Woodward saying it's a threat piece on the main page, but no update on the actual e-mail.


librul media!
2013-02-28 12:04:32 PM
1 votes:

NateGrey: Woodward is reportedly slated to appear on Sean Hannity's Fox News show Thursday night to discuss the exchange.

Republicans will Benghazi this story.


Which Simpsons character should we use for the ensuing meme?
2013-02-28 12:03:14 PM
1 votes:

gilgigamesh: Brubold: cameroncrazy1984: max_pooper:

So the two of you have somehow managed to ignore our eroding civil liberties during Obama's presidency? His continuation of the Bush era policies that are quickly growing our country into a police state? Random DHS road blocks? TSA molestations? Expansion of warrantless surveillance of US citizens?

I'll just leave these here -

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/16/us/politics/16obama.html?_r=1&hp

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/theres-no-room-f or -civil-liberties-in-obamas-inauguration-view-of-america/267422/

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/obama_signs_ndaa_again/

And of course there are many many more to be found.

Let's just get this out of the way: you are completely correct on those points.

However, they have absolutely zero, zilch, null set, nada, nothing, to do with this subject.

You are obvious. Stop threadjacking and stay on topic.


I've received a timeout for less.
2013-02-28 12:03:06 PM
1 votes:

Brubold: mongbiohazard: Brubold: Philip Francis Queeg: 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

Deflectors to maximum, Captain!

Seems to me that liberals have been more into the holodeck during Obama's presidency. It's a nice way to pretend the bad stuff he's doing doesn't exist.

See the link next to the headline? Click it and then read. In this case, as it is for MANY of the other supposed "outrages" of the Obama administration, the "bad stuff he's doing" LITERALLY does not exist. This whole story about the threats was a lie. That's not to say the Obama administration has nothing we can criticize it for, but the legitimate gripes are far less pruriently partisan.

Click the link, read, think - and then become more enlightened. Or you can keep jerking that knee and spreading lies like a moron. Your call, really.

I already read the link. It was the first thing I did. Personally I think he's being too kind to Obama by saying that he doesn't know what his people are doing. I think that's naive.

You have to account for the context of the story. The email was sent after the guy yelled at Woodward for 1/2 an hour according to Woodward. After you just went through that, wouldn't it be possible to take a statement like "you'll regret it" as a threat even if it was surrounded by apologetic tones?


Woodward certainly didn't seem offended in his response to the e-mail, now did he?
2013-02-28 12:02:08 PM
1 votes:

Phinn: Gene Sperling just emailed me to say, "There are more than one side to every budget.  Really.  Now, pay close attention while I try to control the economy of the entire United States. If it wrong, my bad. Trust us we're super smart that way."


So what you're saying is that Congress is holding up the process because they won't agree to compromise and there isn't much that Obama can do about that?

Huh. I guess we agree, then.
2013-02-28 12:00:19 PM
1 votes:

Brubold: cameroncrazy1984: max_pooper:

So the two of you have somehow managed to ignore our eroding civil liberties during Obama's presidency? His continuation of the Bush era policies that are quickly growing our country into a police state? Random DHS road blocks? TSA molestations? Expansion of warrantless surveillance of US citizens?

I'll just leave these here -

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/16/us/politics/16obama.html?_r=1&hp

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/theres-no-room-f or -civil-liberties-in-obamas-inauguration-view-of-america/267422/

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/obama_signs_ndaa_again/

And of course there are many many more to be found.


I won't try to speak for them, but I know that I am not the least bit happy about the continuation of some of the Bush era policies, but I also look at the entire picture and being upset at one policy does not preclude me from praising another. In general, Obama aligns more with my own views than anyone on the right, so I support him. Calling that "giving him a pass" on the things I don't like is just partisan hackery.
2013-02-28 11:57:38 AM
1 votes:

Brubold: cameroncrazy1984: max_pooper:

So the two of you have somehow managed to ignore our eroding civil liberties during Obama's presidency? His continuation of the Bush era policies that are quickly growing our country into a police state? Random DHS road blocks? TSA molestations? Expansion of warrantless surveillance of US citizens?

I'll just leave these here -

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/16/us/politics/16obama.html?_r=1&hp

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/theres-no-room-f or -civil-liberties-in-obamas-inauguration-view-of-america/267422/

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/obama_signs_ndaa_again/

And of course there are many many more to be found.


I like how all three of those are opinion columns.
2013-02-28 11:56:43 AM
1 votes:

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

Congress sets spending levels.

How many times did you say this when people other than Obama were president?  Provide links, please.

How many times did you forget who sets spending levels when people other than Obama were president?

No, it's cool.  Whenever anyone has a word to say about any president's role in budgeting, spending, deficits, debt, taxes, or anything fiscal ever, we can just say, "Sperling" as a kind of shorthand for "my bad."

It may be time for you to stop typing now.

Why so sensitive?  Are you upset that you had to resort to arguing that your man-crush Obama is an ineffectual bystander just to keep Gene "My Bad" Sperling from looking like a retard?

I'm never upset to have to report facts, no. Are you?

You're right.  Presidents are ineffectual, meaningless, uninvolved bystanders in all governmental spending matters, and therefore devoid of responsibility for any fiscal occurrences during their tenure.

Sperling.


I didn't say that, you did. I simply corroborated the fact that the Congress is the one that sets the budget. You appear to not be able to challenge that fact.
2013-02-28 11:49:48 AM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: Turns out the man who took down Nixon is a ginormous pussy


To think if Nixon would have just written a letter repeatedly apologizing for his behavior, Woodward would probably have felt threatened enough to drop the whole thing.
2013-02-28 11:47:44 AM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: Turns out the man who took down Nixon is a ginormous pussy


Man, what does that say about Nixon?
2013-02-28 11:47:18 AM
1 votes:
It was either the ultimate troll or the ultimate dick move. Either he put it out there to bait the right wing media, or he basically betrayed a friend who was apologizing for a heated moment in a personal exchange. It is remarkedly similar to the "Friends of Hamas" incident in a way. Both were parts of personal conversations said in confidentiality, and both times the confidentiality was violated over something taken out of context and attempted to be exploited for political gain.
2013-02-28 11:46:37 AM
1 votes:

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

Congress sets spending levels.

How many times did you say this when people other than Obama were president?  Provide links, please.

How many times did you forget who sets spending levels when people other than Obama were president?

No, it's cool.  Whenever anyone has a word to say about any president's role in budgeting, spending, deficits, debt, taxes, or anything fiscal ever, we can just say, "Sperling" as a kind of shorthand for "my bad."


It may be time for you to stop typing now.
2013-02-28 11:45:26 AM
1 votes:

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

Congress sets spending levels.

How many times did you say this when people other than Obama were president?  Provide links, please.

How many times did you forget who sets spending levels when people other than Obama were president?

No, it's cool.  Whenever anyone has a word to say about any president's role in budgeting, spending, deficits, debt, taxes, or anything fiscal ever, we can just say, "Sperling" as a kind of shorthand for "my bad."


So how many times?
2013-02-28 11:45:15 AM
1 votes:

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

Congress sets spending levels.

How many times did you say this when people other than Obama were president?  Provide links, please.


as if the absolute truth in his statement depends on anything else.

but hey, you got caught saying something as false as it was stupid, so talk about something else.
2013-02-28 11:44:37 AM
1 votes:
Woodward made his reputation on fabricating the truth.  Apparently, he's just run out of truth . . . or no longer recognizes it.
2013-02-28 11:39:37 AM
1 votes:
Arugula, spicy mustard, mom jeans, golf, 'threatening' letter.
2013-02-28 11:37:40 AM
1 votes:

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

Congress sets spending levels.

How many times did you say this when people other than Obama were president?  Provide links, please.


Why would he need to say a simple fact every time there's a different president. It's true, is it not?
2013-02-28 11:34:36 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-02-28 11:34:24 AM
1 votes:

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


Congress sets spending levels.
2013-02-28 11:32:36 AM
1 votes:

Philip Francis Queeg: Deflectors to maximum, Captain!


UGH.

For the 80th time, deflectors are NOT used to repel an attack. Those are shields.

Deflectors are part of the navigational array.
2013-02-28 11:31:23 AM
1 votes:
So does anyone think Bob will regret making up the regret lie?
2013-02-28 11:31:11 AM
1 votes:

Phinn: theknuckler_33: Phinn: Sperling: "My bad. ... Really ... there are more than one side to our first disagreement."

This Sperling guy sounds like a true intellectual heavyweight.

I feel so much better knowing that he's in charge of planning an entire economy.

Wow... interpreting a bit of common slang and a grammar error in a casual email to be a sign of poor intelligence... that's some good police work there, Lou.

Remember, kids, you'll never be disappointed if your standards are low enough.


Your standards appear to be making their way towards China at the moment.
2013-02-28 11:21:57 AM
1 votes:

Phinn: Sperling: "My bad. ... Really ... there are more than one side to our first disagreement."

This Sperling guy sounds like a true intellectual heavyweight.

I feel so much better knowing that he's in charge of planning an entire economy.


Wow... interpreting a bit of common slang and a grammar error in a casual email to be a sign of poor intelligence... that's some good police work there, Lou.
2013-02-28 11:21:29 AM
1 votes:
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.
2013-02-28 11:15:46 AM
1 votes:
Wow... That's about the farthest thing FROM a threat it could be. He all but gave Woodward a handy-J in that email. So Woodward's claims of White House intimidation are garden variety lies. OK. Now that all questions have been answered, let's check the other thread...

/checks other Woodward threatened by White House thread

Yeah, pretty much what I expected... Most of the folks from the right claiming left-wing hypocrisy for anyone criticizing Woodward and outraged at Obama's "Chicago style politics" are doubling down. Wow. Just cannot accept when reality is at odds with what you WANT to believe, huh guys?

So the problem with our dysfunctional right is that the right has gone so far overboard that facts and objective reality are literally an anathema to them now. Fantastic... How the fark do you fix almost half the country supporting a team which literally denies reality - or even denies it themselves?
2013-02-28 11:15:19 AM
1 votes:

GAT_00: It's amazing how quickly you can throw away 40 years of credibility.


www.dailybuzzz.com
2013-02-28 11:12:48 AM
1 votes:

xxmedium: BUT... BUT FOXNEWS HAS ALREADY MADE ALL THE WOODWARD-GATE BUMPERS AND GRAPHICS

[i.imgur.com image 244x364]


To be fair, the headline IS true.  The White House does deny threatening Woodward.  That's more than can be said about Glenn Beck and that 1990 rape and murder.
2013-02-28 11:07:37 AM
1 votes:
Right Wing: "OMG did you hear the Obama admin threatened their darling Woodward?"
Man on the street: "Really? let's hear more about the story!"
Politico: "Ok, Here's the full text of the email and reply from Woodward."
Right Wing:  "SQUIRREL!"
2013-02-28 11:06:53 AM
1 votes:

Dinki: There can only be a few reasons for Woodward making such a big deal about this-

1. He's going senile, and is imagining slights and insults where none occur.

2. He is pissed at the administration about something, and is using this non-issue to try to slap the WH.

3. He has become a lazy journalist, and knows that you can make more money pandering to the  wingnuts with imaginary Obama administration indiscretions than with in depth investigative journalism.


or a combination of the three.
2013-02-28 11:04:36 AM
1 votes:
Looks at Woodward's response email. Wonder if the guy talked with is still trying to pry the six inch dagger from his back.

I accept your apology, no big deal. Oh, by the way if my attempt to take something you said completely out of context in order to gain some attention ends your career. Well, I owe you soda. How are the kids doing?

What an arse!
2013-02-28 11:03:17 AM
1 votes:

GAT_00: It's amazing how quickly you can throw away 40 years of credibility.


i4.mirror.co.uk
2013-02-28 10:59:41 AM
1 votes:
I love how the egg-smearers at Drudge Report seem to be making this look like Tony Soprano making threats when "you are going to regret........." is just another phrase for "Boy, are you going to feel like a horse's patoot when you realize what a blunder you made.".

And the right wing wonders why no one likes them.
2013-02-28 10:59:09 AM
1 votes:

SlothB77: I've exhausted my limited capacities in the other thread.  I have nothing more to add for this thread.  Carry on without me, guys.


But who will post lies?? WHO??? 30,000 criminals on the street!
2013-02-28 10:53:59 AM
1 votes:
Truth and Truth in politics are two wildly different things.  Truth in politics is divorced from fact.  It stems from the willingness of the base to believe whatever their politician says is true.  In the last election, we witnessed Romney lying as fast as he could.  His job was not to educate, but to obfuscate.  In the day 0 reporting cycle we have gotten ourselves into, the first statement is going to be the one that gets the most air time.  The retraction will be printed on page 6 or across the crawler at the bottom of the newscast, or it is buried on some webpage.

The initial message is the important one, a huge claim backed up by little fact will always get the most traction and the fallout is so minuscule because you're on to the next claim and the next.  The facts have no choice but to play catch-up.
2013-02-28 10:53:13 AM
1 votes:

JerseyTim: Prior to 2008, ambassadors were chosen in a national search for the best and brightest and chosen by merit only.


That's all fine and good, but my original question remains valid: does anyone really, honestly care who their ambassadors are?  This is a red herring to the topic of this discussion.
2013-02-28 10:52:06 AM
1 votes:

Trivia Jockey: To nobody's surprise, conservatives were quick to point to the Obama administration's "Chicago thug-style" politics.

For normal people, this would put egg on their faces.  But I doubt you'll hear anyone them admitting they got this one wrong.


just take a look in the prior thread on this email...the GOPers were going apeshiat, then suddenly, coincidentally around the time that the text of the email was posted, they all wanted to talk about something else.

/OMG a wolf!!
//that's not a wolf
///oh ok, uh...look over there! a WOLF!!!
////*facepalm
2013-02-28 10:48:24 AM
1 votes:

Trivia Jockey: To nobody's surprise, conservatives were quick to point to the Obama administration's "Chicago thug-style" politics.

For normal people, this would put egg on their faces.  But I doubt you'll hear anyone them admitting they got this one wrong.


So far they're blaming Woodward for playing to their prejudices.
2013-02-28 10:45:46 AM
1 votes:
When I was young, I tried to climb a tree.

My mom told me that if I kept going, I might get hurt.

I see now that she was threatening me. How horrible of her, to threaten her own child so.

SHAME!
2013-02-28 10:44:22 AM
1 votes:

Dinki: 3. He has become a lazy journalist, and knows that you can make more money pandering to the wingnuts with imaginary Obama administration indiscretions than with in depth investigative journalism.


I'm gonna go with that one except he doesn't fully grasp that in 2013 people can fact check the dumb shiat you say quickly.
2013-02-28 10:42:47 AM
1 votes:
There can only be a few reasons for Woodward making such a big deal about this-

1. He's going senile, and is imagining slights and insults where none occur.

2. He is pissed at the administration about something, and is using this non-issue to try to slap the WH.

3. He has become a lazy journalist, and knows that you can make more money pandering to the  wingnuts with imaginary Obama administration indiscretions than with in depth investigative journalism.
2013-02-28 10:42:27 AM
1 votes:
I see the white house spin machine and their Fark shills are in full cover mode.

/expected
2013-02-28 10:40:52 AM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: netcentric: I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post.I think you will regret staking out that claim Not out to argue and argue on this latter point. Just my sincere advice.You do not ever have to apologize to me. You get wound up....


Ohhhhhh....so they were veiled threats.   Hidden in a psuedo politicking email.    Or you could say a veiled apology.
Gee....I wonder what he is apologizing for ???    Something the WH said in the phone call...?
Hmmmm.....     a heated phone call.    But nobody threatened anyone.  Nope.   The apology was for nothing.

Just.

What the fark, man?


Just based on the punctuation I thing WW might be back.
/Best part....forever!
2013-02-28 10:39:29 AM
1 votes:
Why on earth did he reply with this if he came out and said it was a threat?

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:  http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/exclusive-the-woodward-sperling - emails-revealed-88226.html#ixzz2MD095GWl
2013-02-28 10:36:53 AM
1 votes:
Bob Woodward has been coasting on reputation for 40 years. His credibility was tattered during the GW Bush administration and now he's finished shredding it. Dude's not a journalist - he's a catty elitist gossipmonger.
2013-02-28 10:36:10 AM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Kaeishiwaza: Really?  This is the threatening letter?

Mr. Woodward seems to be pushing an agenda at the cost of reality.

That's why we're pretty sure he's auditioning for a job at Fox News.


Print media is dying and only conservatards will buy books that they won't read.
2013-02-28 10:34:01 AM
1 votes:
Really?  This is the threatening letter?

Mr. Woodward seems to be pushing an agenda at the cost of reality.
2013-02-28 10:32:10 AM
1 votes:
I've exhausted my limited capacities in the other thread.  I have nothing more to add for this thread.  Carry on without me, guys.
2013-02-28 10:31:38 AM
1 votes:

DamnYankees: I think everything you need to know here is the fact that Woodward has decided to go on Hannity tonight to talk about this.


I hope he brings his best pearls to clutch
MFK
2013-02-28 10:31:15 AM
1 votes:

GAT_00: It's amazing how quickly you can throw away 40 years of credibility.


Dan Rather agrees.
2013-02-28 10:31:07 AM
1 votes:
This whole thing is like watching senility in action.
2013-02-28 10:28:45 AM
1 votes:
I guess after you've taken down a President, everything afterwards seems to pale in comparison.

Maybe it's time to start cashing that social security check, Bob.
2013-02-28 10:27:07 AM
1 votes:
Woodward should be disgraced and banished from the journalist community
2013-02-28 10:26:57 AM
1 votes:

JerseyTim: Why would Woodward lie about this? Follow the money.


Study it out.
2013-02-28 10:17:50 AM
1 votes:
I predict that this thread will be full of republicans lying and claiming people aren't nice enough to them.
2013-02-28 10:09:37 AM
1 votes:

make me some tea: So then, wtf is he making this big deal about being "threatened", then? That's not a threat, it sounds more like advice. Come on, Bob, you're better than this.


He's pissed because "I'M BOB F*CKING WOODWARD! AND YOU WILL SHOW ME SOME GOD DAMN RESPECT!"
2013-02-28 10:05:14 AM
1 votes:
Something something Chicago something something Obama.
 
Displayed 171 of 171 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report