It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
White House economic adviser Gene Sperling to Woodward:
I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. 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 ... My apologies again for raising my voice on the call with you. Feel bad about that and truly apologize.
Woodward's response:
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.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Seems Woodward had a telephone argument with Gene Sperling, the Director of the National Economic Council. Sperling raised his voice a couple times and later wrote the infamous email of apology to Woodward (apologizing for raising his voice). That email said Mr. Woodward would regret what he said, NOT as a threat, but because Woodword's position was factually inaccurate and he would eventually be embarrassed. And, Woodward responded kindly, before bringing this story to the press...
UPDATE: Ben Smith and Josh Marshall say the "Obama aide" in question is Gene Sperling. Sperling is the 54-year old lawyer and economic adviser, who is currently serving as the Director of the National Economic Council, and has hitherto never been known as anyone a normal human adult would have any reason to feel physically threatened by.
Source
I want to see the email before making my judgment about it all.edit on 2/28/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)
Why would Sperling tell Woodward he would regret his statements though? Regret is a feeling not often felt in the realm of Big Journalism. These guys are not motivated by "regrets"
Originally posted by Glinda
Gene Sperling...how does the underside of the HopeyChangey chassis look, as you sir are now officially "under the bus."
Funny...Woodward said, emphatically on CNN, that it was a "senior White House advisor." I think many of us would have to scour the Internet to "find" Sperling on a WH roster...yet the verbal allusion left the impression 'you'd know the email writer if I told you.' Fascinating...
Now that Sperling has been named, I wonder if the "unnamed, career government employee" (that underling in DHS who no one knows--not Obama, not Napolitano) but yet has enough "power" to issue the release of federal immigration detainees, will be outed as well. Maybe he/she can "do lunch" w/Sperling...and compare bus schedules.
Originally posted by ColoradoJens
Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by BABYBULL24
Actually very relevant, and all the more interesting....think on that.
If, and that is if Woodward is speaking out now in any way as a timed event,
that would point you in the right direction.
Sure...how about this zinger from the best investigative journalist we have around:
Woodward believed the Bush administration's claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction prior to the war. During an appearance on Larry King Live, he was asked by a telephone caller, "Suppose we go to war and go into Iraq and there are no weapons of mass destruction," Woodward responded "I think the chance of that happening is about zero. There's just too much there."[12]
Seems like perhaps he sometimes doesn't know as much as he would like us to believe. Or perhaps, there is a different motive behind his words.
link
CJ
Originally posted by stirling
WTF else is this piece of crap diverting attention from?
The small cuts to the budget are hardly crippling to anyone.
There is somebodys agenda being served here, and i think Woodward is servng it...The email seems
inocuos enough,whats the big deal?
The small cuts to the budget are hardly crippling to anyone.
It really is inappropriate and unseemly for a journalist to challenge or criticize the U.S. government.
Mr. Woodward, as a well-respected author and investigative reporter, should -- of all people -- know that by now.
Originally posted by Bilk22
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I want to see the email before making my judgment about it all.
Lots of apologies and excuses coming down the pipe I see from Obama apologists and enablers. .
Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
If they're not real - we're still left only with Woodward's account and interpretation
What is more likely - that he meant that he would regret saying what he said because it will all play out differently than he had anticipated?
White House economic adviser Gene Sperling to Woodward:
I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. 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 ... My apologies again for raising my voice on the call with you. Feel bad about that and truly apologize.
Woodward's response:
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.