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

[VinBucFan]

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.

Ok, let's work backwards.

I think you would agree there is a very public battle over who will be to blame for sequestration, right? If you agree with that then you should agree that the WH would directly and unequivocally deny Woodward's claim if it was false, right?  They wouldn't leave it for you and me and the rest if America to deduce that they disagreed, right? No matter who is in the WH - Bush, Clinton, Obama - a "non-denial denial" (ie not directly stating the report is false) is the same as an admission. That's just the way it works.

I don't care how you label it (I would agree that coerce is what they allegedly tried to do to Lanny Davis not Woodward) the object of the aide's efforts was to STOP Woodward from doing what he is doing today. That's bad no matter how one slices it, all the worse because no denial

The Title. The title is intentionally a joke and an exaggeration. I am not a journalist and I also created the thread last night when the story first broke. A lot more has come out since then. Would you object now if I started a thread that read "don't f-- with the WH Lanny"?  Just kidding obviously as I don't care about the "threat" aspect it's the act of trying to prevent the story rather than just denying it. With all due respect, they were not worried about Woodwards rep.

[dbucfan]

Surely it is just a coincidence that Standard & Poor is being attacked (the only rating agency who downgraded the US) over failing to alert everyone about the housing bubble, that CBO officials were taken to see the President and they promptly changed the impact of Barrycare, and the GM bondholders that ILLEGALLY moved the back of the line so the Union folks could get theirs, or the administration telling politicians receiving stimulus money how they could use it, or the continual efforts to bully the US Supreme Court.. all actions of the current President and/or his staff. 

How many dots are required?  I don't want to be overwhelming

[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?

CBW?

[CBWx2]

You originally presented the story as the WH sending Woodward a "threatening" email in order to "intimidate" him into not "exposing" the POTUS as a "liar."

Here's the actual email, followed by Woodward's response:

From Gene Sperling to Bob Woodward on Feb. 22, 2013

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. 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. It was assumed by the Rs on the Supercommittee that came right after: it was assumed in the November-December 2012 negotiations. There may have been big disagreements over rates and ratios — but that it was supposed to be replaced by entitlements and revenues of some form is not controversial. (Indeed, the discretionary savings amount from the Boehner-Obama negotiations were locked in in BCA: the sequester was just designed to force all back to table on entitlements and revenues.)

I agree there are more than one side to our first disagreement, but again think this latter issue is diffferent. Not out to argue and argue on this latter point. 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

From Woodward to Sperling on Feb. 23, 2013

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#ixzz2MEiJsiwk

Sperling tells Woodward that as a friend, he thinks he will regret running with the story, and then goes on to tell him why. The reason given was that the notion that the president had moved the goalpost on the sequester was a transparently false statement, because the purpose of the sequester was to force a negotiation on spending and cuts before the deadline hit from the get go, and that everyone knew that. He gave his sincere advice that he shouldn't run with the story, not because it made the POTUS look bad, but because he felt that it would make Woodward look bad, and then ended it with telling him that it was obviously his call, and then apologized again be before signing off.

That wasn't even "kinda-sorta" a threatening email, nor did Woodward's response suggest that he really felt like he was being threatened or coerced. Your presentation of this entire exchange was nothing short of grade A, unsubstantiated political hackery, and you have the grapes to accuse someone else of being a hack? Sheesh!

The buffoonery never ends with this guy...

[VinBucFan]

Translated: Vin didn't type what I claimed he did. Classic CBW. The longer the response the higher the BS level

[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?

CBW?

Pants on fire comes to mind

[CBWx2]

Did you read the email before making this thread, Vinny P?

[VinBucFan]

Any denial from the WH yet:

http://freebeacon.com/ryan-woodward-is-right-obama-moved-goalposts/

[VinBucFan]

http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story_1.html

[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?

CBW?

Without admitting that comment in bold is a LIE (i never said anyone shouldnt read the e-mail?), you posted this (complete with the shot):

You originally presented the story as the WH sending Woodward a "threatening" email in order to "intimidate" him into not "exposing" the POTUS as a "liar."

The buffoonery never ends with this guy...

This is my ORIGINAL presntation of the story. No reference to an e-mail, no use of the words you have in quotes as if I used them with the exception of liar, which is accurate, Woodward is saying the President is talking out both sides of his mouth.  Anyway, here's the ORIGINAL post:

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.""

Polititracker used the **CENSORED**rd "threatened" in its link, not me.  I did not use or even suggest the words you have in quotes (except for "liar").  I commented on what the article said. And, as I have said in this thread many times, my position is actually call it what you want because that's not the issue.


Hilarious that you just make stuff up and then call me the bufoon . . . .

[CBWx2]

You didn't have to say it, jackass, because you did it. You created this thread claiming that Woodward was being threatened and intimidated by the WH, and then attacked people who actually read the email and came to the obvious and undeniable truth that the email was neither threatening or intimidating as being "driven by political affiliations".

If you had actually read the email before creating the thread, I suspect that even you wouldn't have been idiotic enough to classify it as threatening, but that's not what you did, is it Vinny Peanuts? You saw an article with a nice, shiny headline that looked appealing to you and you ran with it, political shill that you are.

[VinBucFan]

You didn't have to say it

ROFLMAO  -- what a freaking joke.  You cant hold me accountable for your LIE (or terrible reading skills)

[CBWx2]

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.

Intimidate was your word. Is that what the verbiage in the email supports, Vinny? Did the email read as though it was trying to intimidate Woodward into not reporting his story?

[VinBucFan]

You created this thread claiming that Woodward was being threatened and intimidated by the WH, and then attacked people who actually read the email and came to the obvious and undeniable truth that the email was neither threatening or intimidating as being "driven by political affiliations".

I don't care how you label it (I would agree that coerce is what they allegedly tried to do to Lanny Davis not Woodward) the object of the aide's efforts was to STOP Woodward from doing what he is doing today. That's bad no matter how one slices it, all the worse because no denial

The Title. The title is intentionally a joke and an exaggeration. I am not a journalist and I also created the thread last night when the story first broke. A lot more has come out since then. Would you object now if I started a thread that read "don't f-- with the WH Lanny"?  Just kidding obviously as I don't care about the "threat" aspect it's the act of trying to prevent the story rather than just denying it. With all due respect, they were not worried about Woodwards rep.

Btw, has Woodward retracted his concern about how he was treated?  The e-mail exchnage is an apology exchange following a disagreement.  I would expect both guys to write professional e-mails, but that was not even my point. The point was Woodward was going to call POTUS a liar and the WH tried to stop him.  You can try to sugarcoat it by quibbling over the amount of force -- lol -- but they did try.  And, let me quote something that you choose to ignore from your own post.  Be right back   ...

OK, you posted this not me:

From Woodward to Sperling on Feb. 23, 2013

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#ixzz2MEiJsiwk

I know you lived all this BUT I talked extensively with all involved . . . . That's Woodward saying I STAND BY MY STORY because he actually talked to the players.  Woodward says your guy is a LIAR and there is NO DENIAL fromthe WH to a story that has been out for a while.  If Woodward was wrong, Carney would have said so today  and he would have said so UNEQUIVOCALLY (he spent a very long time addressing this story, but only addressed the "threat" as far as I have seen)

So . . .  you have a lot of things wrong . . . which seems to be the case often . . .  and you called me a "bufoon" to top it all off ....lol

[VinBucFan]

cue 10 more pages of CBW backtracking drivel starting . . . . . .