Bob Woodward: White House said I would ‘regret’ it if I pursued the story

Quote from jplayland : What is Morning Joe? Can you link to the video? The video linked in the OP shows a pretty clear negative reaction to being told he would regret it. If your argument is that he hasn't used the word threat, that is weak. I can do logical math. A person is told he would "regret it" and says he was made "very uncomfortable." Sounds like a clear logical path to conclude he felt threatened. If you have another video to submit as evidence against, please do so. At this point the evidence provided seems to support this being a threat.

I disagree.

When a colleague of mine acted like a jerk, I was made very uncomfortable. But I did not feel threatened. To go from "being made uncomfortable" to "being threatened" is a huge leap.

Here is a link [thehill.com] to a report on and video of the Morning Joe program.

And you keep ignoring my question that asks why you think Woodward is refusing to characterize this as a threat.

Quote from TRNT : I disagree. When a colleague of mine acted like a jerk, I was made very uncomfortable. But I did not feel threatened. To go from "being made uncomfortable" to "being threatened" is a huge leap. Here is a link [thehill.com] to a report on and video of the Morning Joe program.

It would be a huge leap without the other half of the equation, the "you will regret" portion must be considered.

I'm in the middle of the video from morning joe, he is clearly backtracking and now says he did not feel it was a threat. I wonder if he is just protecting his friend, now that the email is leaked, if he got a full real threat from the admin, or if he just stepped over the line yesterday and backtracked to reality.

In any event, the conclusion that "you will regret" + "making him feel uncomfortable" = "felt threatened" is a reasonable conclusion. If you can't admit that, you are being unreasonable.

Here is a link to the video from MSNBC's site. Video [msn.com]

Quote from jplayland : It would be a huge leap without the other half of the equation, the "you will regret" portion must be considered. I'm in the middle of the video from morning joe, he is clearly backtracking and now says he did not feel it was a threat. I wonder if he is just protecting his friend, now that the email is leaked, if he got a full real threat from the admin, or if he just stepped over the line yesterday and backtracked to reality. In any event, the conclusion that "you will regret" + "making him feel uncomfortable" = "felt threatened" is a reasonable conclusion. If you can't admit that, you are being unreasonable.

He claims he NEVER said he felt threatened. In order to backtrack, one must have once claimed he was threatened. Do you claim that? Exactly where is the backtrack?

And also so is the below a reasonable conclusion:

"you will regret" + "making him feel uncomfortable" = "the guy acted like a jerk"

I ask you again; why do you think Woodward refuses to characterize this as a threat? Do you think he is scarfed?

Quote from TRNT : "you will regret" + "making him feel uncomfortable" = "the guy acted like a jerk"

yeah, we are familiar with that fuzzy math......


“No Acts of Terror” = “ The Attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was an Act of Terror”

Quote from Radeck : you're entitled to your opinion....however, media outlets and Woodward himself disagree with you, but keep spinning. http://www.politico.com/story/201...88212.html

From today's Washington Post [washingtonpost.com]:

Woodward said he stands by the idea that Sperling’s language was over the line but stops short of suggesting outright intimidation. “I never characterized it as a ‘threat,’ ” he said. “I think that was Politico’s word. I said I think [Sperling’s] language is unfortunate, and I don’t think it’s the way to operate. . . . [Sperling’s] language speaks for itself. I don’t think that’s the way to operate.”

Now are you going to say that the man is a liar, and that he said he was threatened before he said he wasn't?

Quote from jplayland : Sounds like you choose to ignore the video where he clearly called it a threat.

And you and others choose to ignore this video [today.com] in which at 1:47 Woodward says, "I've never said this was a threat."

/thread

BTW: I have lost some respect for Woodward. Not because I disagree with him on the substance of his claim. I agree with him. Not that I approve of the language the WH staff used. I do not.

I lost respect for Woodward because he chose to release a very small excerpt, an excerpt that put the WH and WH staff at the worst light. But when the full email was released, the picture changed tremendously.

Tsk tsk Mr Woodward.

There are 40 or so posts in this thread. So what is the lesson, IMO, after all these replies?

1. We get a link from a blog:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/02/28/bob-woodward-white-house-threatened-me/

2. I wish Podium would ban blog posts or at least require the posters explicitly and prominently inform the board that these their link is a blog.

3. Noted the claim that Woodward was threatened in the link.

4. Here is an excerpt from this blog: "saying in multiple interviews that the administration essentially threatened him". WTH is "essentially." Is the author "essentially" a journalist?

What a dastardly lie!

5. And who is the author of that blog: Aaron Blake, who has no byline. Does anyone knows what it takes to be a blogger other than a PC with internet connection?

"Longtime Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward is taking on the White House, saying in multiple interviews that the administration essentially threatened him to try to get him not to write a story."

Quote from Rebound : From today's Washington Post [washingtonpost.com]: Woodward said he stands by the idea that Sperling’s language was over the line but stops short of suggesting outright intimidation. “I never characterized it as a ‘threat,’ ” he said. “I think that was Politico’s word. I said I think [Sperling’s] language is unfortunate, and I don’t think it’s the way to operate. . . . [Sperling’s] language speaks for itself. I don’t think that’s the way to operate.” Now are you going to say that the man is a liar, and that he said he was threatened before he said he wasn't?

No. I'm going to say the man needs to keep his status and access for his livelihood. Further, he shares political ideologies with the WH, so he has no problem contributing to the spin.

Quote from 124nic8 : And you and others choose to ignore this video [today.com] in which at 1:47 Woodward says, "I've never said this was a threat." /thread

Nice spin. You forget to mention the video just came out a few hours earlier. Most of us had not seen it yet. I clearly did not ignore it.

This only distracts form the real issue - Obama has revealed himself as a serial liar.

That we have posters here still carrying his water on this is rather revealing...

Quote from adams135 : He's done than many many times over the years ... why does people act like this is his first time. And yes .. if there was a video of him telling 100 people (i.e. witnesses) he was a Muslim and out to destroy this country there would still be some on here who would defend him or claim the video was doctored and the witnesses liars. Anyone who reads the post on this board realizes that and many just make comments because they like to see what ridiculous defense they can come up with. Instead of letting it upset you just enjoy it like most of us do. Everyone needs a laugh now and then.

Agreed. The last election proved so much....