obama's thugs threaten Bob Woodward

obama's thugs threaten Bob Woodward

Posted in the Quakertown Forum

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Jersey Duke

Quakertown, PA

#1 Feb 28, 2013
The Chicago method caught up with liberal reporter Bob Woodward when he made remarks that obama was becoming deranged over Sequestration. He got an email from a top White House advisor that "he would live to regret his comments" Wow!!
poopsheetcake

Quakertown, PA

#3 Feb 28, 2013
Jersey Duke wrote:
The Chicago method caught up with liberal reporter Bob Woodward when he made remarks that obama was becoming deranged over Sequestration. He got an email from a top White House advisor that "he would live to regret his comments" Wow!!
your quote is wrong, but only a little. He also says he doesnt believe that Obama had anything to do with his situation.
Info

Broomall, PA

#4 Feb 28, 2013
poopsheetcake wrote:
<quoted text>
your quote is wrong, but only a little. He also says he doesnt believe that Obama had anything to do with his situation.
"you're going to regret this" is the quote.

http://www.businessinsider.com/bob-woodward-o...

If you believe Obama has nothing to do with this...you need to take your blinders off.

Chicago Thuggery politics as usual. Put this on the shelf right next to Rahm Emmanuel's dead fish stunt.

Will Woodward bring down another president????
Jersey Duke

Quakertown, PA

#5 Feb 28, 2013
What do you think they did to John Roberts to get him to change his opinion on obamacare?
Joe

Chalfont, PA

#6 Feb 28, 2013
The entire exchange between Woodward and Sperling is more civil than being portrayed in right-wing media sources. But these shills are determined to milk the last line. They can't harass Hagel anymore so they need something to push web traffic and ratings.
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#7 Feb 28, 2013
Jersey Duke wrote:
The Chicago method caught up with liberal reporter Bob Woodward when he made remarks that obama was becoming deranged over Sequestration. He got an email from a top White House advisor that "he would live to regret his comments" Wow!!
The lying and manipulation of this WH on the "Sequestration" (Obama's idea) is unprecedented, and the media is largely not reporting it. The spending "cuts" are not spending cuts, they are reductions to proposed INCREASES in spending over 2012 and they amount to only $44 billion in this fiscal year with the rest spread out over the next 5 years.

But the Administration and their henchmen are screaming about laying off air traffic controllers, airport security, civilian military workers, releasing prisoners, etc., etc. to scare people and damage the Republicans instead of doing what's best for the country and implementing a real plan to address the deficit and $17 trillion debt in some other way than raising taxes.

Every department affected by the automatic spending cuts has the option to cut non-essential spending before critical programs are cut, and there is plenty of waste to go around. Honest Liberals like Bob Woodward are getting sick of the deception. This will backfire on the Democrats if the American public feels any pain from these relatively trivial "cuts".
dbar

Quakertown, PA

#8 Feb 28, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
The lying and manipulation of this WH on the "Sequestration" (Obama's idea) is unprecedented, and the media is largely not reporting it. The spending "cuts" are not spending cuts, they are reductions to proposed INCREASES in spending over 2012 and they amount to only $44 billion in this fiscal year with the rest spread out over the next 5 years.
But the Administration and their henchmen are screaming about laying off air traffic controllers, airport security, civilian military workers, releasing prisoners, etc., etc. to scare people and damage the Republicans instead of doing what's best for the country and implementing a real plan to address the deficit and $17 trillion debt in some other way than raising taxes.
Every department affected by the automatic spending cuts has the option to cut non-essential spending before critical programs are cut, and there is plenty of waste to go around. Honest Liberals like Bob Woodward are getting sick of the deception. This will backfire on the Democrats if the American public feels any pain from these relatively trivial "cuts".
and the House republican leader agreed to "Sequestration".
in that deal Congress was to find the spending cuts.
let's repeat that Congress was to find the spending cuts.
so as usual you avoid that responsibility the House leader agreed to.
As to the Democrats damaging republicans?
LOL.
the republicans who have obstructed legislation(even their own ideas) for political purposes.
holding up nominees,delaying anything in their power to delay.
and they brag about such things.
now that they are being called on to hold up their end of the bargain they want to claim the democrats are picking on them?
please.

as to pain and blowback you might want to ask newt about how that worked out for him and his party when he played that game.
dbar

Quakertown, PA

#9 Feb 28, 2013
Info wrote:
<quoted text>
"you're going to regret this" is the quote.
http://www.businessinsider.com/bob-woodward-o...
If you believe Obama has nothing to do with this...you need to take your blinders off.
Chicago Thuggery politics as usual. Put this on the shelf right next to Rahm Emmanuel's dead fish stunt.
Will Woodward bring down another president????
the emails show the quote which is not ""you're going to regret this"


http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/exclusi...

"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."

"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."

yep really threatening language there,an apology no less.
and for a guy who says he was threatened he responds

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"
dbar

Quakertown, PA

#10 Feb 28, 2013
Jersey Duke wrote:
The Chicago method caught up with liberal reporter Bob Woodward when he made remarks that obama was becoming deranged over Sequestration. He got an email from a top White House advisor that "he would live to regret his comments" Wow!!
as usual you get it wrong again.
the quote is "I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim."

just to make it easy for you it is not ""he would live to regret his comments".

you need better sources
Jersey Duke

Quakertown, PA

#11 Feb 28, 2013
Notice when you hit a nerve, dumbar posts like a spnning top gone crazy!
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#12 Feb 28, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
and the House republican leader agreed to "Sequestration".
in that deal Congress was to find the spending cuts.
let's repeat that Congress was to find the spending cuts.
so as usual you avoid that responsibility the House leader agreed to.
As to the Democrats damaging republicans?
LOL.
the republicans who have obstructed legislation(even their own ideas) for political purposes.
holding up nominees,delaying anything in their power to delay.
and they brag about such things.
now that they are being called on to hold up their end of the bargain they want to claim the democrats are picking on them?
please.
as to pain and blowback you might want to ask newt about how that worked out for him and his party when he played that game.
OF COURSE HE AGREED after the Democrats refused to budge and Obama walked out on the "grand bargain." He should have known that Democrats are never serious about reducing spending. So, with your logic, the Democrats who voted for the Iraq war are just as guilty as Dubya?

Don't talk to me about Newt and political gamesmanship when you have nutcases like Maxine Waters talking about losing 180 million jobs, Janet Napolitano allowing illegal aliens out of prison, and Barry threatening to layoff federal workers because of spending cuts that aren't even cuts. The govt will still end up spending $14 billion MORE than it spent last year even with the Sequester. The House has submitted plan after plan, and Harry Reid's Senate refuses to even discuss them. When are people going to wake up and see how slimy this Administration is? Raise taxes and spend more, go deeper into debt on our way to $20 'effin TRILLION dollars. What a plan!
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#13 Feb 28, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
as usual you get it wrong again.
the quote is "I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim."
just to make it easy for you it is not ""he would live to regret his comments".
you need better sources
You are reprinting an email; you do not know what was said over the phone. From the context of the email, it was far from cordial and may well have included a strong "you will live to regret this" comment. In any case, there was clearly an attempt to intimidate a journalist. These snippets from the email show it:

"I apologize for RAISING MY VOICE in our conversation today."

"But I do truly believe YOU SHOULD RETHINK YOUR COMMENTS...as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim."

[Lots of apologies, was this after it was made public?]

From Woodward to Sperling on Feb. 23, 2013

"You get WOUND UP because you are making your points..."
"I for one welcome a little HEAT."

I don't think you have to be a "fly on the wall" to pick up the nasty tone of that conversation. It's not surprising that they tried to mollify the situation after it hit the media.
dbar

Quakertown, PA

#15 Feb 28, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
OF COURSE HE AGREED after the Democrats refused to budge and Obama walked out on the "grand bargain." He should have known that Democrats are never serious about reducing spending. So, with your logic, the Democrats who voted for the Iraq war are just as guilty as Dubya?
Don't talk to me about Newt and political gamesmanship when you have nutcases like Maxine Waters talking about losing 180 million jobs, Janet Napolitano allowing illegal aliens out of prison, and Barry threatening to layoff federal workers because of spending cuts that aren't even cuts. The govt will still end up spending $14 billion MORE than it spent last year even with the Sequester. The House has submitted plan after plan, and Harry Reid's Senate refuses to even discuss them. When are people going to wake up and see how slimy this Administration is? Raise taxes and spend more, go deeper into debt on our way to $20 'effin TRILLION dollars. What a plan!
and HE DID NOT HOLD UP HIS END OF THE BARGAIN.
you continuously avoid mentioning that.
what the republicans have refused to do is to put defense cuts on the table.
of any kind.
spare me the nonsense of force readiness,i am talking about say spending a couple of billion on field radios that do not work.
where is the right wing cry about that waste.
or an advanced fighter jet that causes asphyxiation of the pilots.
or for the same plane a flight helmet that is not ready for prime time.
billions of dollars yet not a peep from the republicans.
care to bet on whether mr investigation republican congressman darrell issa plans to have hearings on that waste?
or the threat to the troops?

when i see the republicans start talking about cutting waste in the defense department then they can come to the adults table.
dbar

Quakertown, PA

#16 Feb 28, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
You are reprinting an email; you do not know what was said over the phone. From the context of the email, it was far from cordial and may well have included a strong "you will live to regret this" comment. In any case, there was clearly an attempt to intimidate a journalist. These snippets from the email show it:
"I apologize for RAISING MY VOICE in our conversation today."
"But I do truly believe YOU SHOULD RETHINK YOUR COMMENTS...as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim."
[Lots of apologies, was this after it was made public?]
From Woodward to Sperling on Feb. 23, 2013
"You get WOUND UP because you are making your points..."
"I for one welcome a little HEAT."
I don't think you have to be a "fly on the wall" to pick up the nasty tone of that conversation. It's not surprising that they tried to mollify the situation after it hit the media.
the email exchange was made public,nowhere did it say "you will live to regret this".
show me where in the email that it does.
show me where woodward claims that statement is in the email discussion.
even the fair and balanced claims the correct quote

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/28/wh...

"The account comes after Woodward claimed Wednesday night that a White House aide sent him an email saying he would "regret" his recent reporting on the sequester battle."

". I think you will regret staking out that claim."

are you saying fox got it wrong?
their crack head journalists are in the tank for Obama?

another example of the right wing fake outrage machine.
dbar

Quakertown, PA

#17 Feb 28, 2013
Jersey Duke wrote:
Notice when you hit a nerve, dumbar posts like a spnning top gone crazy!
notice when you show a birther the facts the response is to attack the messenger.
dbar

Quakertown, PA

#18 Feb 28, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
You are reprinting an email; you do not know what was said over the phone. From the context of the email, it was far from cordial and may well have included a strong "you will live to regret this" comment. In any case, there was clearly an attempt to intimidate a journalist. These snippets from the email show it:
"I apologize for RAISING MY VOICE in our conversation today."
"But I do truly believe YOU SHOULD RETHINK YOUR COMMENTS...as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim."
[Lots of apologies, was this after it was made public?]
From Woodward to Sperling on Feb. 23, 2013
"You get WOUND UP because you are making your points..."
"I for one welcome a little HEAT."
I don't think you have to be a "fly on the wall" to pick up the nasty tone of that conversation. It's not surprising that they tried to mollify the situation after it hit the media.
just for thought

http://www.redstate.com/2013/02/27/w5-h-a-bas...

" I just do not see the need to get outraged over things without first having all the facts at hand. Further, I do not see the need to get outraged over everything, when better targeting of stories that truly resonate would serve conservatives well. We do our cause more harm than good if we get outrageously outraged over every slight and grievance. Yes there is an institutional media bias against the right, but we must also honestly acknowledge that conservatives have also screamed “Wolf” a these past few years more often than there was one.

Conservatives must start telling stories, not just producing white papers and peddling daily outrage. The stories we choose to tell should have all the information we need to be informed of facts and paint a picture of those facts’ impact."

something that conservatives should consider.
Revere

Philadelphia, PA

#19 Feb 28, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
notice when you show a birther the facts the response is to attack the messenger.
Notice that any time there is an interesting post on TOPIX? dbutt & Joe comes on and destroys it. Take a hike Joedbutt.
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

#20 Feb 28, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>and HE DID NOT HOLD UP HIS END OF THE BARGAIN.
you continuously avoid mentioning that.
what the republicans have refused to do is to put defense cuts on the table.
of any kind.
spare me the nonsense of force readiness,i am talking about say spending a couple of billion on field radios that do not work.
where is the right wing cry about that waste.
or an advanced fighter jet that causes asphyxiation of the pilots.
or for the same plane a flight helmet that is not ready for prime time.
billions of dollars yet not a peep from the republicans.
care to bet on whether mr investigation republican congressman darrell issa plans to have hearings on that waste?
or the threat to the troops?

when i see the republicans start talking about cutting waste in the defense department then they can come to the adults table.
Not true. Defense cuts have already been made to the point where the joint chiefs are squalking. But defense cuts alone won't do it and the Democrats refuse to address the elephant in the room - entitlements. Waste in that sector is immense, remember Obama's campaign promise to save $500 million from waste? What do you suppose happened to THAT promise? Another campaign lie. He doubled down on Obamacare and piled on $6 trillion in deficit spending. He's not serious about even having a budget, let alone balancing one.

It's just astounding how the only way you find to defend this guy is to point out what Republicans have failed to do. What positive things has he or the Democrats done or proposed to get the budget under control or address the issue? Try to answer without mentioning Republicans.

It's a very lame argument to say that you only can expect leadership from your party when you see it in the other party.
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

#21 Feb 28, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>the email exchange was made public,nowhere did it say "you will live to regret this".
show me where in the email that it does.
show me where woodward claims that statement is in the email discussion.
even the fair and balanced claims the correct quote

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/28/wh...

"The account comes after Woodward claimed Wednesday night that a White House aide sent him an email saying he would "regret" his recent reporting on the sequester battle."

". I think you will regret staking out that claim."

are you saying fox got it wrong?
their crack head journalists are in the tank for Obama?

another example of the right wing fake outrage machine.
I'm saying the email is only part of the story. What do you think "yelling for two hours on the phone" consisted of? I doubt it was a lovefest. Lani Davis' remarks shows that's how these thugs operate.
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

#22 Feb 28, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>just for thought

http://www.redstate.com/2013/02/27/w5-h-a-bas...

" I just do not see the need to get outraged over things without first having all the facts at hand. Further, I do not see the need to get outraged over everything, when better targeting of stories that truly resonate would serve conservatives well. We do our cause more harm than good if we get outrageously outraged over every slight and grievance. Yes there is an institutional media bias against the right, but we must also honestly acknowledge that conservatives have also screamed “Wolf” a these past few years more often than there was one.

Conservatives must start telling stories, not just producing white papers and peddling daily outrage. The stories we choose to tell should have all the information we need to be informed of facts and paint a picture of those factsÂ’ impact."

something that conservatives should consider.
There is some truth to this, but the same can be said for MSNBC, HuffPost, MoveOn, etc. Even NBC has been forced to admit purposely editing clips to put Republicans in a bad light. The New York Times have printed lies and half truths about Republicans. Liberals can't take the high road when it comes to integrity. When it comes to objective journalism, it's now a rotting corpse.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Quakertown Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
This town is so boring 12 hr Richard Buffet 4
whats the old Zorrows turing into in Quakertown? 15 hr bike with buckets 4
Poll How many women go braless ? NO MEN and Ladies b... (Mar '10) 18 hr Billy Zilembo 97
Richland Meadows (May '09) Mar 23 Kitty 39
News Farm-to-plate restaurant to set up shop in Quak... Mar 23 Kitty 6
Banging noise in Quakertown area Mar 23 Shag D Erotten 3
Sands Brother Dodge in Quakertown (Dec '08) Mar 23 kyle 24

Quakertown Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Quakertown Mortgages