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

[VinBucFan]

NBC news has a piece on the Popes retirement package:

http://www.nbcnews.com/

[acacius]

In fact, here.  Go read the entire email:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/exclusive-the-woodward-sperling-emails-revealed-88226.html

[VinBucFan]

In fact, here.  Go read the entire email:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/exclusive-the-woodward-sperling-emails-revealed-88226.html

I did read it. My guess us you're so focused on how to label the email ( threat, warning, intimidation) because you don't want to discuss the purpose? Do you agree that the purpose was to try to prevent Woodward from reporting that POTUS "moved the goal post"?

[acacius]

I'm pretty sure I already stated that I didn't consider "prevent" to be an accurate word to use.  Talk him out of it, yes, but there's nothing nefarious about that.  This isn't a matter of my being focused on labels as it is a matter of my focusing on underlying intent.  I'm just trying to find the right words to use to explain that to you.

If you prefer, what I'm saying is that in context, the email is clearly less "Don't f---- with the White House" than it is, "you're going to make yourself look silly by saying this stuff that simply isn't true".

[spartan]

I'm pretty sure I already stated that I didn't consider "prevent" to be an accurate word to use.  Talk him out of it, yes, but there's nothing nefarious about that.  This isn't a matter of my being focused on labels as it is a matter of my focusing on underlying intent.  I'm just trying to find the right words to use to explain that to you.

If you prefer, what I'm saying is that in context, the email is clearly less "Don't f---- with the White House" than it is, "you're going to make yourself look silly by saying this stuff that simply isn't true".

Woodward isn't exactly a right wing schill, and I think he has been around Washington long enough not to get his verbiage arbitrarily mixed up. You would have to think that if he thought he was being threatened by the WH, there is some semblance of truth about it.

[VinBucFan]

I'm pretty sure I already stated that I didn't consider "prevent" to be an accurate word to use.  Talk him out of it, yes, but there's nothing nefarious about that.  This isn't a matter of my being focused on labels as it is a matter of my focusing on underlying intent.  I'm just trying to find the right words to use to explain that to you.

If you prefer, what I'm saying is that in context, the email is clearly less "Don't f---- with the White House" than it is, "you're going to make yourself look silly by saying this stuff that simply isn't true".

Well, I am pretty sure the WH is not in the job of safeguarding Woodward's reputation. Lol, I would say that yelling at him (raising my voice in the email) either means they were VERY committed to protecting Woodward's reputation or they didn't want him to do something. Besides, reporters report things. If its wrong, you issue a denial.

They were very committed to keeping Woodward, an iconic reporter of Watergate fame and biographer of Presidents, from sullying his reputation by getting a fact wrong.  C'mon now ...  I am hoping you don't really believe that? Doesn't that sound absurd?

Has the WH denied his report?

[VinBucFan]

Ok Lanny Davis - a Clinton aid - just said he has been threatened too

[VinBucFan]

From what I can find, the WH is denying the threat but not the substance of Woodward's report? Anyone find the WH denying that Obama " moved the goal posts"?

Update: Carney took time to address the "threat" issue and defend the aid but did not address the substance.

[CBWx2]

Vince is right. You shouldn't read the email and come to any conclusions by dissecting the actual verbiage used. You should see it as a threat because Woodward and the Drudge Report tell you that it's a threat. Otherwise, you are just being a political hack. LOL at the buffoonery!

[VinBucFan]

Vince is right. You shouldn't read the email and come to any conclusions by dissecting the actual verbiage used. You should see it as a threat because Woodward and the Drudge Report tell you that it's a threat. Otherwise, you are just being a political hack. LOL at the buffoonery!

Get ready because CBW is about to derail the thread with a long debate over what the word threat means -lol

Reporters report, the WH confirms or denies it doesn't act as the guardian of Woodward's reputation. That is almost too funny to type. Woodward was given unique access to Obama. With that access he says Obama moved the goal posts. I haven't seen a denial. I have seen the WH address it but no denial.

Btw, Lanny Davis is an Obama supporter and a former Clinton aide and he just said the WH called his editor one time and threatened to take away his credentials.

Lmao

[acacius]

Well, I am pretty sure the WH is not in the job of safeguarding Woodward's reputation. Lol, I would say that yelling at him (raising my voice in the email) either means they were VERY committed to protecting Woodward's reputation or they didn't want him to do something. Besides, reporters report things. If its wrong, you issue a denial.

First off, you're treating the White House like it's some sort of monolithic entity.  Which is stupid.  We're talking about Gene Sperling, a specific guy.  Next, he didn't raise his voice in the email.  He raised his voice in a face-to-face argument he had with Woodward.  He apologized for that in the email.  And I never suggested that he wasn't trying to change Woodward's mind about the subject, nor am I trying to suggest that the root cause of the argument and email was to try to protect Woodward's reputation, by suggesting that Woodward was holding onto an inaccurate viewpoint. Of course the bottom line was that he was trying to talk Woodward out of his viewpoint.  The point is that it was a discussion, not a matter of Sperling trying to force or scare Woodward into doing anything. 

Based on the actual email.

[VinBucFan]

Well, I am pretty sure the WH is not in the job of safeguarding Woodward's reputation. Lol, I would say that yelling at him (raising my voice in the email) either means they were VERY committed to protecting Woodward's reputation or they didn't want him to do something. Besides, reporters report things. If its wrong, you issue a denial.

First off, you're treating the White House like it's some sort of monolithic entity.  Which is stupid.  We're talking about Gene Sperling, a specific guy.  Next, he didn't raise his voice in the email.  He raised his voice in a face-to-face argument he had with Woodward.  He apologized for that in the email.  And I never suggested that he wasn't trying to change Woodward's mind about the subject, nor am I trying to suggest that the root cause of the argument and email was to try to protect Woodward's reputation, by suggesting that Woodward was holding onto an inaccurate viewpoint. Of course the bottom line was that he was trying to talk Woodward out of his viewpoint.  The point is that it was a discussion, not a matter of Sperling trying to force or scare Woodward into doing anything. 

Based on the actual email.

Lol, I said long ago characterize it how ever you like. It now seems you agree that the WH (an aide) was trying to prevent him from going with his story. Great. Have you seen the WH deny it?

Btw, Lanny Davis's claim is worse than Woodward's in terms of conduct

[VinBucFan]

Vince is right. You shouldn't read the email and come to any conclusions by dissecting the actual verbiage used.

CBW - are you going to post a quote where I said that ^^

I don't think I said that? Is your political affiliation getting the best of you?

[VinBucFan]

Lanny Davis is a right-wing goon:

http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2013/02/28/longtime-dem-lanny-davis-also-reports-white-house-threat

Oh wait .... He is not. He is an Obama supporter and a former Clinton aide

[acacius]

Lol, I said long ago characterize it how ever you like. It now seems you agree that the WH (an aide) was trying to prevent him from going with his story. Great. Have you seen the WH deny it?

As long as you ackowledge that there was no attempted coercion in Woodward's case, fine.  That makes the title of the thread hidously inaccurate though.

And no, I haven't seen the White House address this specific report, but if you listen to the various things they've said and done regarding the sequester, it's quite clear that they don't agree with it.