Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

BOB WOODWARD: A 'Very Senior' White House Person Warned Me I'd 'Regret' What I'm Doing

Posted by   + Show Post


Bob Woodward said this evening on CNN that a "very senior person" at the White House warned him in an email that he would "regret doing this," the same day he has continued to slam President Barack Obama over the looming forced cuts known as the sequester.

CNN host Wolf Blitzer said that the network invited a White House official to debate Woodward on-air, but the White House declined.

"It makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters, 'You're going to regret doing something that you believe in,'" Woodward said.

"I think they're confused," Woodward said of the White House's pushback on his reporting.

Earlier today on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Woodward ripped into Obama in what has become an ongoing feud between the veteran Washington Post journalist and the White House. Woodward said Obama was showing a "kind of madness I haven't seen in a long time" for a decision not to deploy an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf because of budget concerns.

The Defense Department said in early February that it would not deploy the U.S.S. Harry Truman to the Persian Gulf, citing budget concerns relating to the looming cuts known as the sequester.

"Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying, 'Oh, by the way, I can't do this because of some budget document?'" Woodward said on MSNBC

"Or George W. Bush saying, 'You know, I'm not going to invade Iraq because I can't get the aircraft carriers I need?'" Or even Bill Clinton saying, 'You know, I'm not going to attack Saddam Hussein's intelligence headquarters,' ... because of some budget document?"

Last weekend, Woodward called out Obama for what he said was "moving the goal posts" on the sequester by requesting that revenue be part of a deal to avert it.

by on Feb. 28, 2013 at 6:37 AM
Replies (41-50):
KamWorthy
by Silver Member on Feb. 28, 2013 at 7:39 PM
I agree. A perfect example of "it does not matter if its true or not, I like him therefore it's irrelevant. He can do no wrong" see it all the time.
Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

She does not have to like Obama, you completely dodged the point. Her like or dislike of him DOES NOT NEGATE the validity of her complaint in the OP. The constant attempts to deflect criticism Of Obama by claiming the person doing The criticizing just does not like him is beyond ridiculous.


Quoting coolmommy2x:

OP does not like Obama at all. She posts a negative post about him almost everyday. She will tell you this so I'm not really "claiming" anything besides the truth. She even thanked me for the bump! And I NEVER used the word racism (I could be wrong but I don't believe the OP is a racist at all for not liking him). If you choose to berate me, please do so accurately.



Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

If you do not think it should be done, why berate the OP and claim objecting to it is just hating on Obama? It has become all too common and tiresome for accusations of "hating Obama" or even of racism to appear ANY time An objection is raised to his Administration's behavior.






Quoting coolmommy2x:

No I don't think it's OK, no I don't think this WH should do it. I don't think anyone should. Period.







The press and WH have hated each other for YEARS. It's not new. They're oil and water. It's not new and as long as news is reported on by people, it won't end. It's human nature. And the press can be bullies too. It's not one sided and it's bi-partisan.








Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

So it is okay with you when the WH threatens/bullies the press? Or is it that you just do not want this particular WH criticized for it?










Quoting coolmommy2x:

Yep. But OP doesn't care, this is just another post to make everyone dislike and distrust the President. It's hardly news.











Quoting Donna6503:

This maybe a news flash, the war between the press and politicians is as old as our republic.



__Heather__
by on Feb. 28, 2013 at 8:27 PM
2 moms liked this

Agreed, and it appears to be a trend with this administration. More headlines out today that former Clinton administration aide Lanny Davis was similarly threatened.  My guess is more will be coming out of the woodwork soon.  The POTUS and his handlers have obviously lost their minds and think POTUS is God......

Quoting KamWorthy:

Yes, Mr. Woodward is certainly a threat to any administration given his record I'd say.
Quoting __Heather__:

Our POTUS is a joke and our media is a joke.  It's intriguing to see some old school journalists hitting back and it's also intriguing to see some of the mainstream media covering it.  The intent of the media should be to find news, get original sources, report the news, and help educate the masses. This has not been happening for YEARS.  As a graduate with a major in journalism, I can't stand ANY televised news.  All you get is a bunch of talk, commentary, etc. Where is the hard news people???!! News organizations should be investigative and serve as a check in the powers of the government, not be it's lapdog.


SandyLaxner
by Bronze Member on Feb. 28, 2013 at 9:21 PM
1 mom liked this

 


Quoting lga1965:

 Woodward was also threatened when he and Bernstein were digging up dirt on the Nixon Administration during Watergate. I guess if you uncover truths, certain people might want to get even or at least scare you out of continuing your quest for the truth,right? I think that is what is going on. Or is Woodward just on a mission to discredit people, starting with Watergate way back in the70's all the way to the present ? Will we ever know?

We should ask Woodward while he is still alive.

 

lga1965
by on Feb. 28, 2013 at 9:53 PM
1 mom liked this

 After BUSH created the scenario. HE was the one who authorized the money being spent on a meaningless war. And don't pretend there was a good reason for it when nobody in Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. No WMD. No terrorists in NYC or on the airlines were from Iraq.

I am seeing things from both sides of this issue. That's not"talking out of both sides of my mouth". You need to pull yourself together.You're always so angry you can't even think straight.

Quoting pvtjokerus:

You mean Congress and Senate spent money on the Iraqi war.  Get your facts straight.  BOTH parties voted for the war and BOTH parties voted to spend the money for the war multiple times.  How do you think Bush would have been able to do so IF BOTH PARTIES did not vote for the monies???? 

I also find it pathetic that the above statement you say that Woodward could be basically uncovering the truth but below you write that you don't trust him just because he is trying to protect our country.  Sounds like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.......again.

 

Quoting lga1965:

 Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying, 'Oh, by the way, I can't do this because of some budget document?'" Woodward said on MSNBC.

"Or George W. Bush saying, 'You know, I'm not going to invade Iraq because I can't get the aircraft carriers I need?'" Or even Bill Clinton saying, 'You know, I'm not going to attack Saddam Hussein's intelligence headquarters,' ... because of some budget document

************************

Wellll, it would have been good if Bush had NOT spent the money on invading Iraq. And Woodward sounds like he is becoming a war-mongering conservative. I don't trust this guy any more.

 

 

 

lga1965
by on Feb. 28, 2013 at 10:55 PM
1 mom liked this

 You know....nobody thinks that the President can do no wrong. He's not perfect. He's not "Our Savior". ( He seemed to be a better alternative to McCain-Palin in 2008 and better ,for sure, than Romney in 2012) Give us a great Republican candidate and maybe some of us will vote for him( or her )

But Candle always posts a negative post about him every day. Even if she has to search the archives of conservative sites to dig up something, she will post it. Every day.That is an obsession. It is serious hate for a man who isn't "the anti-christ" as some conservatives think he is.

We don't need that kind of silly thing. Lets be mature here.

spotsmom
by Member on Feb. 28, 2013 at 10:56 PM
1 mom liked this

Yeah...Politico just released the email exchange between the two and it was NOTHING like Woodward implies. Nothing. After Sterling states "I know you may not beleive this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim...My apologies again for raising my voice on the call with you. Feel bad about that and truly apologize." Bob woodward replies "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." That doesn't sound like a man who feels like he was just threatened and intimidated, and Sterling certainly doesn't sound like he's MAKING any threats, just advising a friend against a bad move. I have no idea why Woodward would want to misrepresent what was said, other than to get some publicity and be to show up on O'Reilly and Hannity, but he clearly has done so. Clearly. So this appears to be a complete NON-ISSUE. 

spotsmom
by Member on Feb. 28, 2013 at 11:10 PM

Except there was no threat or bullying. It just didn't happen. Read the transcript of the actual email exchange. Anyone who reads it and gennuinely beleives there was a threat involved is either an idiot or emotionally unstable. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/28/bob-woodward-emails-white-house-threat_n_2781052.html?utm_hp_ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=022813&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief


Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

So it is okay with you when the WH threatens/bullies the press? Or is it that you just do not want this particular WH criticized for it?


Quoting coolmommy2x:

Yep. But OP doesn't care, this is just another post to make everyone dislike and distrust the President. It's hardly news.



Quoting Donna6503:

This maybe a news flash, the war between the press and politicians is as old as our republic.



SEEKEROFSHELLS
by Platinum Member on Mar. 1, 2013 at 12:14 AM

 No, it wasn't. IF it was after 911 we would of invaded Saudi, and not Iraq. Gore had some intresting things to say about how we got into Iraq. It was a forgone conclusion in one of the first meetings Bush had. Actually it was a question of HOW we get into Iraq. Bush wanted into Iraq.


Quoting lga1965:

Invading Iraq was not done "to protect our country". How very naive of you to think that.
I am not sure if I trust Woodward.


Quoting pvtjokerus:

You mean Congress and Senate spent money on the Iraqi war.  Get your facts straight.  BOTH parties voted for the war and BOTH parties voted to spend the money for the war multiple times.  How do you think Bush would have been able to do so IF BOTH PARTIES did not vote for the monies???? 


I also find it pathetic that the above statement you say that Woodward could be basically uncovering the truth but below you write that you don't trust him just because he is trying to protect our country.  Sounds like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.......again.




Quoting lga1965:


 Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying, 'Oh, by the way, I can't do this because of some budget document?'" Woodward said on MSNBC.


"Or George W. Bush saying, 'You know, I'm not going to invade Iraq because I can't get the aircraft carriers I need?'" Or even Bill Clinton saying, 'You know, I'm not going to attack Saddam Hussein's intelligence headquarters,' ... because of some budget document


************************


Wellll, it would have been good if Bush had NOT spent the money on invading Iraq. And Woodward sounds like he is becoming a war-mongering conservative. I don't trust this guy any more.







Goodwoman614
by Satan on Mar. 1, 2013 at 12:54 AM



Quoting spotsmom:

Except there was no threat or bullying. It just didn't happen. Read the transcript of the actual email exchange. Anyone who reads it and gennuinely beleives there was a threat involved is either an idiot or emotionally unstable. Or an intractable ideologue: " la la la la ..pesky facts, I can't heeaaaarrrr you! La la la la la!!!"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/28/bob-woodward-emails-white-house-threat_n_2781052.html?utm_hp_ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=022813&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief


Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

So it is okay with you when the WH threatens/bullies the press? Or is it that you just do not want this particular WH criticized for it?


Quoting coolmommy2x:

Yep. But OP doesn't care, this is just another post to make everyone dislike and distrust the President. It's hardly news.



Quoting Donna6503:

This maybe a news flash, the war between the press and politicians is as old as our republic.





pvtjokerus
by Platinum Member on Mar. 1, 2013 at 8:02 AM
1 mom liked this

 There you go again.  Bush did not create anything.  That is not how the Intel world works.  Bush didn't create the Intel coming out of Egypt, France and England.  And do you really want to debate the facts with me about Saddam H and terrorist links??????  Last, if you looked at both sides of any issues, then your lies or ignorance wouldn't be posted on the majority of your comments.  You re-write history, make things up and rarely present facts.  If you believe that by pointing out facts to you is being angry and I would have to say that is a "big negative".  What is tiresome is that there are many of you out there that vote and can't get their facts straight and it is frustrating.


Quoting lga1965:

 After BUSH created the scenario. HE was the one who authorized the money being spent on a meaningless war. And don't pretend there was a good reason for it when nobody in Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. No WMD. No terrorists in NYC or on the airlines were from Iraq.

I am seeing things from both sides of this issue. That's not"talking out of both sides of my mouth". You need to pull yourself together.You're always so angry you can't even think straight.

Quoting pvtjokerus:

You mean Congress and Senate spent money on the Iraqi war.  Get your facts straight.  BOTH parties voted for the war and BOTH parties voted to spend the money for the war multiple times.  How do you think Bush would have been able to do so IF BOTH PARTIES did not vote for the monies???? 

I also find it pathetic that the above statement you say that Woodward could be basically uncovering the truth but below you write that you don't trust him just because he is trying to protect our country.  Sounds like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.......again.

 

Quoting lga1965:

 Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying, 'Oh, by the way, I can't do this because of some budget document?'" Woodward said on MSNBC.

"Or George W. Bush saying, 'You know, I'm not going to invade Iraq because I can't get the aircraft carriers I need?'" Or even Bill Clinton saying, 'You know, I'm not going to attack Saddam Hussein's intelligence headquarters,' ... because of some budget document

************************

Wellll, it would have been good if Bush had NOT spent the money on invading Iraq. And Woodward sounds like he is becoming a war-mongering conservative. I don't trust this guy any more.

 

 

 


 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN