Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Woodward wasn't threatened.
Topic Started: Mar 2 2013, 12:06 AM (519 Views)
tomdrobin
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Woodward is playing games to sell books and get appearances. The truth doesn't sell as well as promoting your propaganda to the Fox loonies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
colo_crawdad
Mar 2 2013, 01:21 AM
Hannity's interview of Woodward

One, If "regret" is a threat, then Hannity threatens the White House in the introduction.

Two, Hannity tried desperately to get Woodward to claim that the President lied or the White House lied and Woodward refuses to do so.
This last couple of transcript paragraphs says it all. Obama said he would not go after any new taxes and now is. The sequester was his idea, the cuts listed his idea, and when confronted with the facts, the power of the office was brought against Woodward. Cut and dried. Thanks for the link to the transcript Colo.


quote:

HANNITY: Why should it matter? If the president suggested the sequestration and then the president denied that he requested the sequestration and the president had a deal that he wasn't going to ask for tax increases and then later does and says, no, that's not true, and they attack you as, well, being willfully wrong, why should this matter? I mean, don't we deserve our government to be honest with us?

WOODWARD: Exactly. And I'm almost 70 years old, I hate to acknowledge. I've done this for four decades. I will keep doing
it in some form. But something that -- you know, the White House saying, you're doing these things when
you've worked months on it and you have the documents and Jay Carney actually acknowledges paternity for the sequester from the White House. The problem is, there are all kinds of reporters who are much less experienced, who are younger, and if they're going to get roughed up in this way, and I am flooded from emails from people in the press saying this is exactly how the White House works. They're trying to control and they don't want to be challenged or crossed.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2013/03/01/exclusive-bob-woodward-speaks-out-heated-exchange-white-house#ixzz2MPJOxHlB
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Pat
Mar 2 2013, 02:12 AM
colo_crawdad
Mar 2 2013, 01:21 AM
Hannity's interview of Woodward

One, If "regret" is a threat, then Hannity threatens the White House in the introduction.

Two, Hannity tried desperately to get Woodward to claim that the President lied or the White House lied and Woodward refuses to do so.
This last couple of transcript paragraphs says it all. Obama said he would not go after any new taxes and now is. The sequester was his idea, the cuts listed his idea, and when confronted with the facts, the power of the office was brought against Woodward. Cut and dried. Thanks for the link to the transcript Colo.


quote:

HANNITY: Why should it matter? If the president suggested the sequestration and then the president denied that he requested the sequestration and the president had a deal that he wasn't going to ask for tax increases and then later does and says, no, that's not true, and they attack you as, well, being willfully wrong, why should this matter? I mean, don't we deserve our government to be honest with us?

WOODWARD: Exactly. And I'm almost 70 years old, I hate to acknowledge. I've done this for four decades. I will keep doing
it in some form. But something that -- you know, the White House saying, you're doing these things when
you've worked months on it and you have the documents and Jay Carney actually acknowledges paternity for the sequester from the White House. The problem is, there are all kinds of reporters who are much less experienced, who are younger, and if they're going to get roughed up in this way, and I am flooded from emails from people in the press saying this is exactly how the White House works. They're trying to control and they don't want to be challenged or crossed.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2013/03/01/exclusive-bob-woodward-speaks-out-heated-exchange-white-house#ixzz2MPJOxHlB
I don't think Obama has ever said he wouldn't be going after any new taxes. That was his stump speech everywhere he went. There had to be a balanced approach including both spending cuts and increased revenues. Anybody who didn't hear him say that on every occasion wasn't listening.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Mountainrivers
Mar 2 2013, 02:16 AM
Pat
Mar 2 2013, 02:12 AM
colo_crawdad
Mar 2 2013, 01:21 AM
Hannity's interview of Woodward

One, If "regret" is a threat, then Hannity threatens the White House in the introduction.

Two, Hannity tried desperately to get Woodward to claim that the President lied or the White House lied and Woodward refuses to do so.
This last couple of transcript paragraphs says it all. Obama said he would not go after any new taxes and now is. The sequester was his idea, the cuts listed his idea, and when confronted with the facts, the power of the office was brought against Woodward. Cut and dried. Thanks for the link to the transcript Colo.


quote:

HANNITY: Why should it matter? If the president suggested the sequestration and then the president denied that he requested the sequestration and the president had a deal that he wasn't going to ask for tax increases and then later does and says, no, that's not true, and they attack you as, well, being willfully wrong, why should this matter? I mean, don't we deserve our government to be honest with us?

WOODWARD: Exactly. And I'm almost 70 years old, I hate to acknowledge. I've done this for four decades. I will keep doing
it in some form. But something that -- you know, the White House saying, you're doing these things when
you've worked months on it and you have the documents and Jay Carney actually acknowledges paternity for the sequester from the White House. The problem is, there are all kinds of reporters who are much less experienced, who are younger, and if they're going to get roughed up in this way, and I am flooded from emails from people in the press saying this is exactly how the White House works. They're trying to control and they don't want to be challenged or crossed.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2013/03/01/exclusive-bob-woodward-speaks-out-heated-exchange-white-house#ixzz2MPJOxHlB
I don't think Obama has ever said he wouldn't be going after any new taxes. That was his stump speech everywhere he went. There had to be a balanced approach including both spending cuts and increased revenues. Anybody who didn't hear him say that on every occasion wasn't listening.
As i understand it, Woodward has quotes and diaries from those in the debt negotiations to back it up.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Pat
Mar 2 2013, 02:18 AM
Mountainrivers
Mar 2 2013, 02:16 AM
Pat
Mar 2 2013, 02:12 AM
colo_crawdad
Mar 2 2013, 01:21 AM
Hannity's interview of Woodward

One, If "regret" is a threat, then Hannity threatens the White House in the introduction.

Two, Hannity tried desperately to get Woodward to claim that the President lied or the White House lied and Woodward refuses to do so.
This last couple of transcript paragraphs says it all. Obama said he would not go after any new taxes and now is. The sequester was his idea, the cuts listed his idea, and when confronted with the facts, the power of the office was brought against Woodward. Cut and dried. Thanks for the link to the transcript Colo.


quote:

HANNITY: Why should it matter? If the president suggested the sequestration and then the president denied that he requested the sequestration and the president had a deal that he wasn't going to ask for tax increases and then later does and says, no, that's not true, and they attack you as, well, being willfully wrong, why should this matter? I mean, don't we deserve our government to be honest with us?

WOODWARD: Exactly. And I'm almost 70 years old, I hate to acknowledge. I've done this for four decades. I will keep doing
it in some form. But something that -- you know, the White House saying, you're doing these things when
you've worked months on it and you have the documents and Jay Carney actually acknowledges paternity for the sequester from the White House. The problem is, there are all kinds of reporters who are much less experienced, who are younger, and if they're going to get roughed up in this way, and I am flooded from emails from people in the press saying this is exactly how the White House works. They're trying to control and they don't want to be challenged or crossed.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2013/03/01/exclusive-bob-woodward-speaks-out-heated-exchange-white-house#ixzz2MPJOxHlB
I don't think Obama has ever said he wouldn't be going after any new taxes. That was his stump speech everywhere he went. There had to be a balanced approach including both spending cuts and increased revenues. Anybody who didn't hear him say that on every occasion wasn't listening.
As i understand it, Woodward has quotes and diaries from those in the debt negotiations to back it up.
If Obama said that, why doesn't Woodward release the memos and diaries that would show it to be true. I never heard him say taxes were off the table and the spending cuts in the 2011 negotiations were more than the tax increases.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I've read that the sequestration was put out there by the Obama administration, particularly Jack Lew. It wasn't new though it has been used before. The GOP voted for it. So, they can't escape any blame by howling it belongs to Obama. Who knows, it may have been a tactical move to screw the GOP, and let them pay politically for the obstructionism in his first term.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Mountainrivers
Mar 2 2013, 02:21 AM
Pat
Mar 2 2013, 02:18 AM
Mountainrivers
Mar 2 2013, 02:16 AM
Pat
Mar 2 2013, 02:12 AM
colo_crawdad
Mar 2 2013, 01:21 AM
Hannity's interview of Woodward

One, If "regret" is a threat, then Hannity threatens the White House in the introduction.

Two, Hannity tried desperately to get Woodward to claim that the President lied or the White House lied and Woodward refuses to do so.
This last couple of transcript paragraphs says it all. Obama said he would not go after any new taxes and now is. The sequester was his idea, the cuts listed his idea, and when confronted with the facts, the power of the office was brought against Woodward. Cut and dried. Thanks for the link to the transcript Colo.


quote:

HANNITY: Why should it matter? If the president suggested the sequestration and then the president denied that he requested the sequestration and the president had a deal that he wasn't going to ask for tax increases and then later does and says, no, that's not true, and they attack you as, well, being willfully wrong, why should this matter? I mean, don't we deserve our government to be honest with us?

WOODWARD: Exactly. And I'm almost 70 years old, I hate to acknowledge. I've done this for four decades. I will keep doing
it in some form. But something that -- you know, the White House saying, you're doing these things when
you've worked months on it and you have the documents and Jay Carney actually acknowledges paternity for the sequester from the White House. The problem is, there are all kinds of reporters who are much less experienced, who are younger, and if they're going to get roughed up in this way, and I am flooded from emails from people in the press saying this is exactly how the White House works. They're trying to control and they don't want to be challenged or crossed.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2013/03/01/exclusive-bob-woodward-speaks-out-heated-exchange-white-house#ixzz2MPJOxHlB
I don't think Obama has ever said he wouldn't be going after any new taxes. That was his stump speech everywhere he went. There had to be a balanced approach including both spending cuts and increased revenues. Anybody who didn't hear him say that on every occasion wasn't listening.
As i understand it, Woodward has quotes and diaries from those in the debt negotiations to back it up.
If Obama said that, why doesn't Woodward release the memos and diaries that would show it to be true. I never heard him say taxes were off the table and the spending cuts in the 2011 negotiations were more than the tax increases.
I'm sure he has his reasons, but maybe he will if Obama keeps attacking his credibility as a journalist.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
tomdrobin
Mar 2 2013, 02:23 AM
I've read that the sequestration was put out there by the Obama administration, particularly Jack Lew. It wasn't new though it has been used before. The GOP voted for it. So, they can't escape any blame by howling it belongs to Obama. Who knows, it may have been a tactical move to screw the GOP, and let them pay politically for the obstructionism in his first term.
It's possible I suppose. And yes both sides agreed to Obama's plan. So here we are.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Pat
Mar 2 2013, 02:12 AM
colo_crawdad
Mar 2 2013, 01:21 AM
Hannity's interview of Woodward

One, If "regret" is a threat, then Hannity threatens the White House in the introduction.

Two, Hannity tried desperately to get Woodward to claim that the President lied or the White House lied and Woodward refuses to do so.
This last couple of transcript paragraphs says it all. Obama said he would not go after any new taxes and now is. The sequester was his idea, the cuts listed his idea, and when confronted with the facts, the power of the office was brought against Woodward. Cut and dried. Thanks for the link to the transcript Colo.


quote:

HANNITY: Why should it matter? If the president suggested the sequestration and then the president denied that he requested the sequestration and the president had a deal that he wasn't going to ask for tax increases and then later does and says, no, that's not true, and they attack you as, well, being willfully wrong, why should this matter? I mean, don't we deserve our government to be honest with us?

WOODWARD: Exactly. And I'm almost 70 years old, I hate to acknowledge. I've done this for four decades. I will keep doing
it in some form. But something that -- you know, the White House saying, you're doing these things when
you've worked months on it and you have the documents and Jay Carney actually acknowledges paternity for the sequester from the White House. The problem is, there are all kinds of reporters who are much less experienced, who are younger, and if they're going to get roughed up in this way, and I am flooded from emails from people in the press saying this is exactly how the White House works. They're trying to control and they don't want to be challenged or crossed.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2013/03/01/exclusive-bob-woodward-speaks-out-heated-exchange-white-house#ixzz2MPJOxHlB
Pat, why did you choose to emphasize Hannity's inane accusations rather than Woodward's denial of those accusations? Do you think you know better than Woodward whether or not Woodward was threatened?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
colo_crawdad
Mar 2 2013, 02:32 AM
Pat
Mar 2 2013, 02:12 AM
colo_crawdad
Mar 2 2013, 01:21 AM
Hannity's interview of Woodward

One, If "regret" is a threat, then Hannity threatens the White House in the introduction.

Two, Hannity tried desperately to get Woodward to claim that the President lied or the White House lied and Woodward refuses to do so.
This last couple of transcript paragraphs says it all. Obama said he would not go after any new taxes and now is. The sequester was his idea, the cuts listed his idea, and when confronted with the facts, the power of the office was brought against Woodward. Cut and dried. Thanks for the link to the transcript Colo.


quote:

HANNITY: Why should it matter? If the president suggested the sequestration and then the president denied that he requested the sequestration and the president had a deal that he wasn't going to ask for tax increases and then later does and says, no, that's not true, and they attack you as, well, being willfully wrong, why should this matter? I mean, don't we deserve our government to be honest with us?

WOODWARD: Exactly. And I'm almost 70 years old, I hate to acknowledge. I've done this for four decades. I will keep doing
it in some form. But something that -- you know, the White House saying, you're doing these things when
you've worked months on it and you have the documents and Jay Carney actually acknowledges paternity for the sequester from the White House. The problem is, there are all kinds of reporters who are much less experienced, who are younger, and if they're going to get roughed up in this way, and I am flooded from emails from people in the press saying this is exactly how the White House works. They're trying to control and they don't want to be challenged or crossed.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2013/03/01/exclusive-bob-woodward-speaks-out-heated-exchange-white-house#ixzz2MPJOxHlB
Pat, why did you choose to emphasize Hannity's inane accusations rather than Woodward's denial of those accusations? Do you think you know better than Woodward whether or not Woodward was threatened?
The reason should seem obvious if you read the transcript. Woodward prefers be a gentleman in all of this and not blatantly label somebody who spent months and time in the campaign denying the facts--- a liar. Are you disagreeing with the facts behind the sequester origination? If so, why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis