In partnership with CBSSports.com
The home for discussion on USC athletics
FightOn247 message board for off topic posts
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Saw this story re-tweeted by Buster Olney (ESPN baseball reporter) ha. Figured the O/T would enjoy it.
TRENDING: Bob Woodward says he was threatened by White House
CNN Political Unit
(CNN) - Veteran journalist Bob Woodward said Wednesday he was threatened by a senior Obama administration official following his reporting on the White House's handling of the forced federal spending cuts set to take effect on Friday.
"They're not happy at all," he said on CNN's "The Situation Room," adding that an e-mail from a senior administration official - who he would not name - communicated a message which caused him great concern....
(CNN) -- Veteran journalist Bob Woodward said Wednesday he was threatened by a senior Obama administration official following his reporting on the White Houses handling of the forced federal spending cuts set to take effect on Friday.
That is super shady and no bueno.
I wonder why he won't name the person. Why protect the person that threatened him?
Who would send that type of message in an email sent to one of the guys that uncovered the Watergate mess?
MeMBeR SiNcE 9/11/2011
MaY GOD BLesS ThE U.S.C. TROJAN'S, AnD AMeRiCA,---FoR ALLL ETeRNiTY!!!
Join the fight for YOUR liberty!
Appears as if Woodward sent a very cozy response to the 'threat.' While I think that this admin has been spinning this whole sequestration thing like a top, the 'threat' seems to me to be a distraction from the actual points that Woodward has been writing about.
Now the press is talking about the 'threat' and not the lies perpetuated by the administration. I have to hand it to Team Obama, they are masterful at distracting from the real problems and getting the press to focus on the sideshows that they create.
My question was answered:
"According to a Democrat aware of the situation, it was Gene Sperling, director of the National Economic Council, who sent the email Woodward cited."
(CNN) -- Veteran journalist Bob Woodward says he was threatened by a senior Obama administration official following his reporting on the White Houses handling of the forced federal spending cuts set to take effect on Friday.
Have you seen the email? It's not as bad as it was initially reported, at all. They sound pretty cordial to each other actually.
If this story is true, then Woodward blew it way out of proportion. That surprises me. Woodward has always seemed very careful how he reports things as far as I can tell.
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: 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. I am listening. I know you lived all this. My partial advantage is that I talked extensively with all involved. I am traveling and will try to reach you after 3 pm today. Best, Bob
What's Woodward's deal?
He made it sound like something it wasn't. That is just about as polite as one can get when strongly disagreeing with others.
Woodward has kind of jumped the shark with Obama. Latest in a long line of nonsense.
The only nonsense is coming from the Obama admin. Constant lies about sequestration and whose idea it was. If you take all of the claims of the things that will happen with sequestration being said by Obama and his cronies it would add uo to over $1 TRILLION in cuts PER YEAR!
Yeah. It's almost like Obama did something to hurt Woodard's feelings.
Woodward has been considered one of the best authors/journalists in our country for more than 30 years. He is the absolute last person I would expect to do something like this. Strange times.
How could that have been construed as a threat?
What a ridiculous distraction.
What a joke. There was not actually a threat and the reply shows that Woodward did not feel threatened.
This is what I mean -- Woodward's claim would have been swept under the rug had it not been for the REAL substance of his repoprting.
Now, the story is about Woodward's claim of being threatened, which to anyone reading the email exchange, is a stretch -- it effectively distracts from and discredits what would otherwise be damaging to the Obama administration.
These guys do this better than any administration that I have ever seen, it really is something that someone in the PR business should study closely.
You're joking, aren't you? Since when is Woodward part of the Obama administration or an Obama crony?
I always had a lot of respect for Woodward and his objectivity. I need to rethink that. On the other hand, this may have been a one off screw up on his part.
If the Obama administration was clever enough to somehow force the reaction it got from Woodward that it did, this is flat out the most cunning administration that this country has seen.
You believe that Obama's administration somehow intentionally got Woodward to distort that conversation?
Are you really THAT obtuse -- my point, which I have made a number of times, is that Woodward's claim of being threatened is what has become the story, not his reporting that Obama is moving the goalposts or that sequestration was a WH idea to begin with.
Woodward put it out there himself, but the WH is the one that has made THAT the story through their reaction, as opposed to addressing the actual facts that Woodward has presented. That is what I find masterful.
Then again, I have never been really impressed with your critical thinking skills, so I am not surprised you missed the point.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports