|
Woodward wasn't threatened.
|
|
Topic Started: Mar 2 2013, 12:06 AM (519 Views)
|
|
tomdrobin
|
Mar 2 2013, 01:58 AM
Post #11
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 19,566
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #14
- Joined:
- Feb 23, 2008
|
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.
|
|
|
| |
|
Pat
|
Mar 2 2013, 02:12 AM
Post #12
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 31,086
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #200
- Joined:
- Apr 13, 2011
|
- colo_crawdad
- Mar 2 2013, 01:21 AM
Hannity's interview of WoodwardOne, 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
|
|
|
| |
|
Mountainrivers
|
Mar 2 2013, 02:16 AM
Post #13
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 33,547
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 24, 2008
|
- Pat
- Mar 2 2013, 02:12 AM
- colo_crawdad
- Mar 2 2013, 01:21 AM
Hannity's interview of WoodwardOne, 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.
|
|
|
| |
|
Pat
|
Mar 2 2013, 02:18 AM
Post #14
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 31,086
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #200
- Joined:
- Apr 13, 2011
|
- 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 WoodwardOne, 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.
|
|
|
| |
|
Mountainrivers
|
Mar 2 2013, 02:21 AM
Post #15
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 33,547
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 24, 2008
|
- 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 WoodwardOne, 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.
|
|
|
| |
|
tomdrobin
|
Mar 2 2013, 02:23 AM
Post #16
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 19,566
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #14
- Joined:
- Feb 23, 2008
|
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.
|
|
|
| |
|
Pat
|
Mar 2 2013, 02:24 AM
Post #17
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 31,086
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #200
- Joined:
- Apr 13, 2011
|
- 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 WoodwardOne, 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.
|
|
|
| |
|
Pat
|
Mar 2 2013, 02:26 AM
Post #18
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 31,086
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #200
- Joined:
- Apr 13, 2011
|
- 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.
|
|
|
| |
|
colo_crawdad
|
Mar 2 2013, 02:32 AM
Post #19
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 39,310
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #4
- Joined:
- Feb 16, 2008
|
- Pat
- Mar 2 2013, 02:12 AM
- colo_crawdad
- Mar 2 2013, 01:21 AM
Hannity's interview of WoodwardOne, 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?
|
|
|
| |
|
Pat
|
Mar 2 2013, 02:48 AM
Post #20
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 31,086
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #200
- Joined:
- Apr 13, 2011
|
- 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 WoodwardOne, 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?
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|