Don't F--- With The White House Bob!!

[VinBucFan]

LMAO

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/27/bob-woodward-says-he-was-threatened-by-white-house/?hpt=hp_t1


Chicago politics.  Bob's gonna be swimming with cement shoes soon . . .it's not nice to call the POTUS a liar:

""[W] hen the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts," Woodward wrote. "His call for a balanced approach is reasonable, and he makes a strong case that those in the top income brackets could and should pay more. But that was not the deal he made.""

[VinBucFan]

And the White House offers a non-denial denial:

But a White House official who would not speak if named said late Wednesday, "Of course no threat was intended."

[dbucfan]

Imagine how clever one must be to reduce such a ... statement to writing providing a copy to an investigative reporter.... then having to accept the tone as one's own, and clarify there was not threat intended.  Awkward. 

[VinBucFan]

lol, you cant script stuff like this. 

Btw, notice all the national coverage for this story and the underlying story . .. . . yeah, me neither

[Morgan]

Yeah- where does the WH get off being blunt with a reporter. Guess Woodward got his feelings hurt.

[CBWx2]

CNN doesn't count as national coverage?

[VinBucFan]

Yeah- where does the WH get off being blunt with a reporter. Guess Woodward got his feelings hurt.

Blunt? They tried to intimidate him into not reporting that the President has gone back on his own deal.  Lol.

[VinBucFan]

CNN doesn't count as national coverage?

These days? Not really, although you prefer NBC I guess. :-).

Lets see what type of coverage this story gets.

[VinBucFan]

Big enough to make the header at Drudge:

http://www.drudgereport.com/


Nothing on NBC -  or at least not in either the top or political headlines:

http://www.nbcnews.com/

Nothing on ABC

http://abcnews.go.com/m/

The Pope's last days is bigger news at NBC and ABC

CBS actually has 3 articles on sequestration "below the fold" and still makes no mention of this story:

http://m.cbsnews.com/index.rbml?


LMAO -- state run media

[McBarron]

The Pope's last days is bigger news at NBC and ABC

Whatever it takes to take the focus off the real issues in America.

Other than being a rock star, what's the purpose of the Pope that makes him this iconic, larger than life human being? If there is some sort of important role he plays in the world other than the insane amt of coverage he receives from literally being seen wherever, please tell me.

[Morgan]

Big enough to make the header at Drudge:

http://www.drudgereport.com/


Nothing on NBC -  or at least not in either the top or political headlines:

http://www.nbcnews.com/

Nothing on ABC

http://abcnews.go.com/m/

The Pope's last days is bigger news at NBC and ABC

CBS actually has 3 articles on sequestration "below the fold" and still makes no mention of this story:

http://m.cbsnews.com/index.rbml?


LMAO -- state run media

In the course of the last day, I've seen Woodward on CBS, MSNBC among other media talking about this so-called "intimidation".  I'm a fan of his since his Watergate days. He's practically had unfettered access to every president since Nixon.  He comes across as whiny now when the WH talks to him like a big boy reporter instead of a celebrity reporter that he's become accustomed to.  "Regret" might mean no more unfettered access that he's become accustomed to.

[VinBucFan]

Big enough to make the header at Drudge:

http://www.drudgereport.com/


Nothing on NBC -  or at least not in either the top or political headlines:

http://www.nbcnews.com/

Nothing on ABC

http://abcnews.go.com/m/

The Pope's last days is bigger news at NBC and ABC

CBS actually has 3 articles on sequestration "below the fold" and still makes no mention of this story:

http://m.cbsnews.com/index.rbml?


LMAO -- state run media

In the course of the last day, I've seen Woodward on CBS, MSNBC among other media talking about this so-called "intimidation".  I'm a fan of his since his Watergate days. He's practically had unfettered access to every president since Nixon.  He comes across as whiny now when the WH talks to him like a big boy reporter instead of a celebrity reporter that he's become accustomed to.  "Regret" might mean no more unfettered access that he's become accustomed to.

Morgan, even with your definition of regret, which I am happy to accept, you get that the story is the WH trying to prevent a reporter from going public with a story because it suggests the President is dishonest, right?  You get that? And, not just dishonest but that he is saying one thing to the public (it is the Republucan's fault) while he is actually to blame because he changed his own deal, right?

I understand people having political allegiances, but lets not deny the truth

[CBWx2]

Thank goodness for the Drudge Report, and other "unbiased" sources, huh Vinny? You're such a freaking buffoon it's not even funny anymore...

[acacius]

The Pope's last days is bigger news at NBC and ABC

Whatever it takes to take the focus off the real issues in America.

Other than being a rock star, what's the purpose of the Pope that makes him this iconic, larger than life human being? If there is some sort of important role he plays in the world other than the insane amt of coverage he receives from literally being seen wherever, please tell me.

He's the spiritual leader of over a billion people.  Whether you  personally care a bit for Catholicism or not, his resignation really is big news.

As for the idea of Woodward being threatened, that's just silly.  The quote in full was:

"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. The idea that the sequester was to force both sides to go back to try at a big or grand barain with a mix of entitlements and revenues (even if there were serious disagreements on composition) was part of the DNA of the thing from the start. It was an accepted part of the understanding — from the start. Really."

That's not a threat.

[CBWx2]

BTW, doesn't a deal constitute agreement on two sides? If the Republican angle is that the sequester is a bad thing, and it's the president's fault, because it was his idea, that kind of overlooks a vital aspect of what the definition of a "deal" is, which is an agreement between two sides for mutual benefit.