|
Woodward wasn't threatened.
|
|
Topic Started: Mar 2 2013, 12:06 AM (517 Views)
|
|
colo_crawdad
|
Mar 2 2013, 02:52 AM
Post #21
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 39,310
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #4
- Joined:
- Feb 16, 2008
|
- Pat
- Mar 2 2013, 02:48 AM
- 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? I listened to the entire interview. I notice that Hannity had no compunction about falsely calling the President a liar. It appears that only Woodward was being honest enough to tell the truth rather than making things up as did Hannity.
|
|
|
| |
|
Mountainrivers
|
Mar 2 2013, 02:57 AM
Post #22
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 33,547
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 24, 2008
|
- Pat
- Mar 2 2013, 02:48 AM
- 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? Are you saying that you have the facts about the sequester origination? If so, please post them. Why argue about the origination at all. Both sides apparently thought it was a good idea since they both voted for it. I think origination is just a way to talk about something other than the sequester itself.
|
|
|
| |
|
Pat
|
Mar 2 2013, 03:11 AM
Post #23
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 31,086
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #200
- Joined:
- Apr 13, 2011
|
- colo_crawdad
- Mar 2 2013, 02:52 AM
- Pat
- Mar 2 2013, 02:48 AM
- 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?
I listened to the entire interview. I notice that Hannity had no compunction about falsely calling the President a liar. It appears that only Woodward was being honest enough to tell the truth rather than making things up as did Hannity. You have now lost me Colo. I rest my case.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|