BOB WOODWARD: Obama Is Showing 'A Kind Of Madness I Haven't Seen In A Long Time'

[Anonymous]

Here's the deal. The CIA is pissed at Obama ( their operatives died in Benghazi), after a few months not getting the resolution they want, Bob Woodward has a new story line for us critical of the same Barak Obama.

Good Ol' Bob, we can always count on him.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm quite sure Woodward is backing down out of fear. That's what happens when thugs behave like thugs...

Here is what The Daily Caller has to say:

"Bob Woodward trolled us (and we got played)"

http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/28/bob-woodward-trolled-us-and-we-got-played/

Here is Erick Erickson, the main guy at Red State:

Ok wow. Finally read the email to Woodward. I must now move to the "not a threat" camp.

https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/307146203760574464

At this point, you are like one of the Japanese soldiers in the Pacific who didn't know the war had ended and were still fighting it years later.

And yet you are still not responding to the fact that others have come forward saying the same thing happened to them. Except to say that the person was a conservative. So they too, must be lying? Then there is Obama himself, stating Fox and and conservative radio should not be allowed to say what they do. That alone should have alarmed the left, who clearly want everyone to have a voice - except for those that disagree with them, clearly.

You show the same behavior. Cracks me up. You don't even see that your behavior is as closed-minded of that which you consider conservatives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Now Woodward says he didn't consider "regret" to have been a threat:

"I never characterized it as a 'threat,'"he said. "I think that was Politico's word."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/woodward-vs-white-house-washington-at-its-weirdest/2013/02/28/d3f707fc-81ed-11e2-8074-b26a871b165a_story.html

Drudge and Breitbart are looking pretty lonely out there on that limb.

Enjoy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/02/28/obama-white-house-and-the-media-an-integrity-problem/

Ron Fournier, who parrots GOP talking points, ha!

Lanny Davis too, huh? Damn right-wingers, with different opinions and all. You'd think they had no tolerance for other's viewpoints....oh......wait.......

Ah, yes, notable liberal hero Lanny Davis. I'm on the cusp of being convinced. Maybe if noted liberal hero Dick Morris were to come forward.

The 'everyone must by lying so Obama's nose is clean' defense again. Getting used to seeing that one.

So by way of synopsis:

1) The eminent "liberal" Bob Woodward accused the Obama White House of threatening him.
2) It is demonstrated in painstaking detail that no liberal does, or has considered Bob Woodward a "liberal.
3) The actual email exchange is published in which it is abundantly clear no threat was made.
4) Bob Woodward admits no threat was made.
5) "Hey, but look this random collection of DC bottom-feeders and partisan hacks with axes to grind also make similar, though completely undocumented, claims."

You really aren't the shiniest teaspoon in the flatware tray, are you?

[Anonymous]

Bottom line - Bob Woodward should just retire. Good grief. He should've taken Sperling's advice so that he didn't come off looking like a big baby with an unsubstantiated axe to grind. I'm embarrassed for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Then there is Obama himself, stating Fox and and conservative radio should not be allowed to say what they do.

You'll forgive us if we wait for an actual cite before accepting this version of events. Then for laughing at you when you either fail to produce one. That's how we roll on the left. We don't just gormlessly swallow whatever someone on the Internet (or conservative media) tells us. Supporting your assertions: it's fun & easy!

[Anonymous]

Link to the texts of the emails. My ex husband is scarier than these guys.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/exclusive-the-woodward-sperling-emails-revealed-88226.html?hp=t1_3

[Anonymous]

Do you think Bob saw the live video of Benghazi? I know he and Fox do great reporting! I saw he has a high place source in the friends of Hamas.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
And yet you are still not responding to the fact that others have come forward saying the same thing happened to them. Except to say that the person was a conservative. So they too, must be lying? Then there is Obama himself, stating Fox and and conservative radio should not be allowed to say what they do. That alone should have alarmed the left, who clearly want everyone to have a voice - except for those that disagree with them, clearly.

You show the same behavior. Cracks me up. You don't even see that your behavior is as closed-minded of that which you consider conservatives.

As far as I know, only Lanny Davis has come forward. I'll just say it. He is lying. This should be obvious if you give it second's thought. His claim in that an Obama Administration called the editor of the Washington Times and told him that unless Davis' column was cancelled, the Times' reporters would lose their White House credentials. Think about this. The Times is staunchly anti-Obama. Do you think they would avoid publishing such a thread? If the Times' reporters actually lost their credentials, don't you think there would be a huge uproar among the rest of the press? How would Fox react to the Times losing its credentials? This would be a huge controversy. The Obama admin is not that stupid. Davis lost his column for other reasons -- most likely because he was asking for too much money from a nearly bankrupt paper. He just made up a story about the telephone call for reasons only he knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Now Woodward says he didn't consider "regret" to have been a threat:

"I never characterized it as a 'threat,'"he said. "I think that was Politico's word."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/woodward-vs-white-house-washington-at-its-weirdest/2013/02/28/d3f707fc-81ed-11e2-8074-b26a871b165a_story.html

Drudge and Breitbart are looking pretty lonely out there on that limb.

Enjoy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/02/28/obama-white-house-and-the-media-an-integrity-problem/

Love the comments section. The people are not buying the "threat" bull. Context is everything, and Woodward is coming across as a wussy with a cap P.

[Anonymous]

The issue is NOT whether Woodward was threatened. The issue is that Woodward wrote an article that the White House did not want "out".
Everyone is now talking about the interaction between Woodward and the White House--not what Woodward wrote. What Woodward wrote is contrary to the White House Talking Points. That is why Sperling got angry.

A couple of weeks ago the White House was denying that sequestration was its idea--when Woodward said it was, the White House backtracked and even Jay Carney admitted that it came from the White House (I think it was Lew's idea.) When Woodward said that part of the deal was that taxes would be off the table, it totally demolishes the White House position.

The fact is that Obama has gotten tax increases. There are tons of taxes in the Affordable Health Care Act and the Republicans agreed to raising taxes on the higher earners a couple of months ago---but now, he still wants increases.
Read your history, every time the GOP agrees to taxes along with spending cuts, the taxes happen and the spending cuts disappear. Is it any wonder they want a bill with cuts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Now Woodward says he didn't consider "regret" to have been a threat:

"I never characterized it as a 'threat,'"he said. "I think that was Politico's word."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/woodward-vs-white-house-washington-at-its-weirdest/2013/02/28/d3f707fc-81ed-11e2-8074-b26a871b165a_story.html

Drudge and Breitbart are looking pretty lonely out there on that limb.

Enjoy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/02/28/obama-white-house-and-the-media-an-integrity-problem/

Love the comments section. The people are not buying the "threat" bull. Context is everything, and Woodward is coming across as a wussy with a cap P.

Man, I rarely read Jennifer Rubin, but she is as dumb as a fucking post. Fred Hiatt really is an American treasure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The issue is NOT whether Woodward was threatened. The issue is that Woodward wrote an article that the White House did not want "out".
Everyone is now talking about the interaction between Woodward and the White House--not what Woodward wrote. What Woodward wrote is contrary to the White House Talking Points. That is why Sperling got angry.

A couple of weeks ago the White House was denying that sequestration was its idea--when Woodward said it was, the White House backtracked and even Jay Carney admitted that it came from the White House (I think it was Lew's idea.) When Woodward said that part of the deal was that taxes would be off the table, it totally demolishes the White House position.

The fact is that Obama has gotten tax increases. There are tons of taxes in the Affordable Health Care Act and the Republicans agreed to raising taxes on the higher earners a couple of months ago---but now, he still wants increases.
Read your history, every time the GOP agrees to taxes along with spending cuts, the taxes happen and the spending cuts disappear. Is it any wonder they want a bill with cuts?

The funny thing is, you don't even seem to understand why this is wrong. Thought you were being disingenuous. I apologize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you think Bob saw the live video of Benghazi? I know he and Fox do great reporting! I saw he has a high place source in the friends of Hamas.

Ummm , his sources are his friends in the CIA and just his basic social circle, which includes him socially because he can be of use to them . His contacts , his livelihood, in a sense his whole life in Washington is dependent on him being "of use" . I suppose after a few years of that, let alone decades of that a man comes to feel self important, but really Woodward is just a stenographer , leak dropper, imho

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is NOT whether Woodward was threatened. The issue is that Woodward wrote an article that the White House did not want "out".
Everyone is now talking about the interaction between Woodward and the White House--not what Woodward wrote. What Woodward wrote is contrary to the White House Talking Points. That is why Sperling got angry.

A couple of weeks ago the White House was denying that sequestration was its idea--when Woodward said it was, the White House backtracked and even Jay Carney admitted that it came from the White House (I think it was Lew's idea.) When Woodward said that part of the deal was that taxes would be off the table, it totally demolishes the White House position.

The fact is that Obama has gotten tax increases. There are tons of taxes in the Affordable Health Care Act and the Republicans agreed to raising taxes on the higher earners a couple of months ago---but now, he still wants increases.
Read your history, every time the GOP agrees to taxes along with spending cuts, the taxes happen and the spending cuts disappear. Is it any wonder they want a bill with cuts?

The funny thing is, you don't even seem to understand why this is wrong. Thought you were being disingenuous. I apologize.

Please elaborate on what's so wrong about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is NOT whether Woodward was threatened. The issue is that Woodward wrote an article that the White House did not want "out".
Everyone is now talking about the interaction between Woodward and the White House--not what Woodward wrote. What Woodward wrote is contrary to the White House Talking Points. That is why Sperling got angry.

A couple of weeks ago the White House was denying that sequestration was its idea--when Woodward said it was, the White House backtracked and even Jay Carney admitted that it came from the White House (I think it was Lew's idea.) When Woodward said that part of the deal was that taxes would be off the table, it totally demolishes the White House position.

The fact is that Obama has gotten tax increases. There are tons of taxes in the Affordable Health Care Act and the Republicans agreed to raising taxes on the higher earners a couple of months ago---but now, he still wants increases.
Read your history, every time the GOP agrees to taxes along with spending cuts, the taxes happen and the spending cuts disappear. Is it any wonder they want a bill with cuts?

The funny thing is, you don't even seem to understand why this is wrong. Thought you were being disingenuous. I apologize.

Please elaborate on what's so wrong about this.

Sure, I'll give you the short version:

Woodward’s book about the debt limit crisis includes the fairly inconsequential detail that the idea of using sequestration (as opposed to other policy options) as an enforcement mechanism originated in the White House. Republicans, who voted for the Budget Control Act in overwhelming numbers, argue flimsily that this detail absolves them of all blame for the coming spending cuts, and have since tried to turn Woodward into a sort of grand arbiter of the debt limit fight.

But in this case Woodward is just dead wrong. Obama and Democrats have always insisted that a balanced mix of spending cuts and higher taxes replace sequestration. It’s true that John Boehner wouldn’t agree to include new taxes in the enforcement mechanism itself, and thus that the enforcement mechanism he and Obama settled upon — sequestration — is composed exclusively of spending cuts. But the entire purpose of an enforcement mechanism is to make sure that the enforcement mechanism is never triggered. The key question is what action it was designed to compel. And on that score, the Budget Control Act is unambiguous.

First: “Unless a joint committee bill achieving an amount greater than $1,200,000,000,000 in deficit reduction as provided in section 401(b)(3)(B)(i)(II) of the Budget Control Act of 2011 is enacted by January 15, 2012, the discretionary spending limits listed in section 251(c) shall be revised, and discretionary appropriations and direct spending shall be reduced.”

Key words: “deficit reduction.” Not “spending cuts.” If Republicans wanted to make sure sequestration would be replaced with spending cuts only, that would have been the place to make a stand. Some of them certainly tried. But that’s not what ultimately won the day. Instead the, law tasked the Super Committee with replacing sequestration with a different deficit reduction bill — tax increases or no.

“The goal of the joint committee shall be to reduce the deficit by at least $1,500,000,000,000 over the period of fiscal years 2012 to 2021,” according to the BCA. The bill even provided the House and Senate instructions for advancing a Super Committee bill if it included revenue. This couldn’t be clearer. In the Super Committee’s waning hours, Republicans tried to entice Democrats into a spending-cut heavy agreement by acceding to a small amount of revenue. Democrats balked — the balance was off — but all of that just goes to show that a tax increase has always been a likely element of a replacement bill, and Republicans know it.

(http://bit.ly/WsxVD5)