So now Bob Woodwards a liar?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
JAYDEEJOHN

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Aug 23, 2006
19,840
0
50,860
OK BO lubbers, maybe now you will wake up.
The long established and revered Bob Woodward is being played as either a liar or stupid, neither of which is true, but hey, the usual propodandists are cranking it up
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/02/28/173135931/the-meaning-of-regret-journalist-bob-woodward-white-house-disagree
"It was said very clearly, you will regret doing this," Woodward told CNN, citing the e-mail.
"I mean, 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.

heres his story
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story.html

His the usual suspects, with their claims
The hilarious sideline story to this week's coming season finale of "Sequestration: The Musical" continues to be the whole Bob Woodwardämmerung B-plot, which began with his Jack-Lew-invented-the-sequester scooplet and has since spiraled into nonsense.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/27/woodward-obama-aide_n_2778007.html

The usual downplaying, discrediting etc etc.


Again, this is dangerous, even as the BO admins tone about sequestration has changed, that we cant be free if our press isnt free
 
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.
Click to expand...

Woodward summed it up pretty well.
 
In fact, the final deal reached between Vice President Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in 2011 included an agreement that there would be no tax increases in the sequester in exchange for what the president was insisting on: an agreement that the nation’s debt ceiling would be increased for 18 months, so Obama would not have to go through another such negotiation in 2012, when he was running for reelection.

So when the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts. 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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story.html

There is a difference between a gentleman and those in the WH, as you so aptly point out
 
Now a days who do we really trust us to tell the truth?This could be a PR stunt who knows.I think Woodward is a honest and decent reporter.He is also a Liberal.Obama is getting to be to power hungry now.
 
Yeah, the irony is palpable.

He's been an icon for integrity, honesty, and exposing the corruption and hypocrisy in government.

For years, reporters climbing the ladder would clamor for stories that allowed them to pull a "Woodward & Bernstein".

Robert Redford played Woodward in the 1976 film "All the President's Men" which ultimately celebrates Nixon's resignation as a result of the Watergate scandal.

The same liberals, progressives, and Democrats that hailed Woodward now consider him a disgrace to journalism and a senile old man who has lost his way simply because they are now the ones in power.

He hasn't changed. The level and quality of politicians have changed.

No one is above reproach, especially our President and this Administration.
 
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


Looks like this think got hyped up beyond all logical reasoning.
 


Right!?!?! For people who literally think Obama is the anti-Christ you think they could do better than this.
 
Im glad you agree with Woodward here, as Obabama is responsible for creating sequestration, as well as getting his tax hikes, and then when asked not to ask again, per his agreement, he asks again, and blames the repubs.
Trust me, history will not be kind
 
Im lost.... Didnt republicans ASK for a trigger to go into affect? And didnt republicans also almost unanimously vote for sequestration....?

Besides, this is like arguing about what kind of gun is pressed against your head...
 
I can't believe that this narrative is still floating around. Once and for all, according to Bob Woodward's book...
...the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors — probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government."

"Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.
Click to expand...
I hope this settles who initiated the function of sequestration. It was Obama and his advisers; NOT House Republicans. As far as House republicans voting for it, what choice was there? It was that or nothing; also as noted in Woodward's book.


You are right tho, it really doesn't matter who's idea sequestration was, not now. what's done is done. All any one can do is sit back and watch the drama unfold and realize the impact of cutting $2.2 Trillion of projected spending over 10 years. My guess we won't realize anything, not when the government is projected spend more in 2013 than in 2012 as well as a projected deficit of over $900 Billion.
 
Well, I hope those republican democrats, the likes which would have stuck up for Nixon, which is basically what theyre doing today, as they deny the facts Mr Woodward has brought out, then lap it up, go for it, hate on Woodward, love ya some BO instead.

Destroy the man who brought a similar "what I do is more important becuase Im the president" Nixon down.
Hate on him, vilify him, make him a fool, call him aged and feeble, deny the facts, keep listening to what you want to hear
 
For those who bitch all the time about Obama you are the people who voted for him.he is the president and don't ever forget it.Woodward and Sperling are just playing games with each other politically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom