BOB WOODWARD: A 'Very Senior' White House Person Warned Me I'd 'Regret' What I'm Doing

Question to My Liberal Friends:

WTF is the Director of the President's National Economic Council doing injecting himself into national affairs issue ?

Now that the entire emial has been released, it seems pretty innocuous to me, and much more clarified from the original reports

From Gene Sperling to Bob Woodward on Feb. 22, 2013
Bob:
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

From Woodward to Sperling on Feb. 23, 2013
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

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...#ixzz2MDdChspS

Of course its a Politico article, so I expect the lefties here to summarily criticize the source rather than the content, as per normal protocol.

Now that the entire emial has been released, it seems pretty innocuous to me, and much more clarified from the original reports



. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

I agree...

Of course its a Politico article, so I expect the lefties here to summarily criticize the source rather than the content, as per normal protocol. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Why? It is in fact the e-mails, why would anyone doubt it...besides JD and LK? Those two airheads doubt anything non Glenn Beck!

Why? Are you not paying close enough attention to Sandbox threads?

Yeah, it makes you wonder where Woodward's outrage was at the "threat" when he responded to the guy via that email, doesn't it? All sweetness and light. Wonder when he changed his mind and decided he was being "threatened" by the "madness"?

As I said, attention-whore, drama-queen douche. Perfect match for Whirly and the rest of the wingnuts who've jumped on to this ridiculous bandwagon.

Much ado about nothing.

Yeah, it makes you wonder where Woodward's outrage was at the "threat" when he responded to the guy via that email, doesn't it? All sweetness and light. Wonder when he changed his mind and decided he was being "threatened" by the "madness"?

As I said, attention-whore, drama-queen douche. Perfect match for Whirly and the rest of the wingnuts who've jumped on to this ridiculous bandwagon.

Much ado about nothing. Originally Posted by timpage

yup ..COF in a nutshell.

Yeah, it makes you wonder where Woodward's outrage was at the "threat" when he responded to the guy via that email, doesn't it? All sweetness and light. Wonder when he changed his mind and decided he was being "threatened" by the "madness"?

As I said, attention-whore, drama-queen douche. Perfect match for Whirly and the rest of the wingnuts who've jumped on to this ridiculous bandwagon.

Much ado about nothing. Originally Posted by timpage

Change the name to "Odumbo" and substitute "sequester" and "libertard" in lieu of "threat" and "wingnuts" and you'd be onto something there, Little Timmy.

yup ..COF in a nutshell. Originally Posted by CJ7

Change the name to "Odumbo" and substitute "sequester" and "libertard" in lieu of "threat" and "wingnuts" and you'd be onto something there, Little Timmy. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I was already on to something half-wit. Draft your own posts....

I was already on to something half-wit. Originally Posted by timpage

Yep, you were! BTW, punctuation is important.

And how long before the story turns into this being another liberal media conspiracy to make conservatives look bad?

How does a StupidOldLyingFart from Bitchita, Kansas know what is being said behind West Wing doors. Perhaps the President did reprimand the staffer for saying something that was out of order. Unless, you were there, you don't know if it was said or not. Do you?

There you have it folks, StupidOldLyingFart has painted himself into the third corner tonight. You would think he would eventually learn!



StupidOldLyingFart seems to be having a really, really bad day! Originally Posted by bigtex

Looks like its you in the corner, bigkotex. After all, who but you, paints a room Cougar Red?

Now that the entire emial has been released, it seems pretty innocuous to me, and much more clarified from the original reports



Of course its a Politico article, so I expect the lefties here to summarily criticize the source rather than the content, as per normal protocol. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Nope, CC, its a threat. There was a yelling match the previous day and he got the "you are going to regret it" line. Top people know what to write in emails. The "you are going to regret it line" is a threat with a diplomatic "fuck you."

Nope, CC, its a threat. There was a yelling match the previous day and he got the "you are going to regret it" line. Top people know what to write in emails. The "you are going to regret it line" is a threat with a diplomatic "fuck you." Originally Posted by gnadfly

Maybe so, but Bob didn't seem too worked up in his reply. Who knows?

yup ..COF in a nutshell. Originally Posted by CJ7

As I said earlier, StupidOldLyingFart painted himself in a corner. Now he has to wait for the paint to dry before Mommie will let him out to play on his 'puter!



StupidOldLyingFart seems to be having a really, really bad day!

Nope, CC, its a threat. There was a yelling match the previous day and he got the "you are going to regret it" line. Top people know what to write in emails. The "you are going to regret it line" is a threat with a diplomatic "fuck you." Originally Posted by gnadfly

Damn gnadfly, you sleep with the light on because you're scared of the Boogie Man?

I've heard worse threats from elementary kids.


From Gene Sperling to Bob Woodward on Feb. 22, 2013
Bob:
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

From Woodward to Sperling on Feb. 23, 2013
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