Jump to content

Bob Woodward looks inside the White House...


Liberty
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Even Ari Fleischer vouches for how accurate Woodward is with these things..

 

What's it like when mythic "reporters" exercise their confirmation bias and make stuff up for dramatic narrative effect?  Ask his Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee.  Woodward and Bernstein have long been criticized, beginning with their first book "All the President's Men," with their "truthful" depictions from "sources."  Since they're MSM heroes, their work is gospel.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2012/04/the-woodward-method-075770

 

" . . .the critics who say source material has been misquoted, miscast, misrepresented — or even made up — in the service of Woodward’s relentless pursuit of a gripping yarn."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you can, get the recording of where Trump call's Woodward and wants to know why he didn't interview him.  Woodward records with Trump's permission, Trump finally admits he knew Woodward was tying to interview him.

Part of it was on CNN which I put on a par with FOX (both are propaganda machines  that Hitler or Stalin would have loved)

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/04/bob-woodward-trump-phone-call-audio-vpx.cnn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even Ari Fleischer vouches for how accurate Woodward is with these things..

 

What's it like when mythic "reporters" exercise their confirmation bias and make stuff up for dramatic narrative effect?  Ask his Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee.  Woodward and Bernstein have long been criticized, beginning with their first book "All the President's Men," with their "truthful" depictions from "sources."  Since they're MSM heroes, their work is gospel.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2012/04/the-woodward-method-075770

 

" . . .the critics who say source material has been misquoted, miscast, misrepresented — or even made up — in the service of Woodward’s relentless pursuit of a gripping yarn."

 

Who, an editor questions a potted plant years later, and the editor wasn't there? Oh my, that surely hurts his credibility...

 

Any surprise the people who look bad then claim it was all made up?

 

Obviously no book is 100% like a video recording of the scene, but it's as close as we're likely to get, at least until more close Trump people come out with their own recordings...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hehe, none of Trump‘s people who worked for him have any credibility after they stopped working for him and make damning statements about him. Make of this what you like. There are several conclusions one can draw from this, but none are positive for Trump.

 

Why is that? You cant just declare that by fiat. I think some don't have credibility because they are just habitual liars (Giuliani), but others are credible, and the fact that they tried their best and didn't get anywhere (Rex Tillerson) doesn't mean that what they're saying isn't true..

 

But anyway, the book is full of statements by people who are still working for Trump (Kelly)....

 

More here about Trump not believing in "human sources" (wtf?):

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/05/trump-said-us-intel-sources-are-people-who-sold-their-souls-report.html

 

After hearing that a U.S. intelligence source in Russia was in enough danger that the CIA wanted to remove that person from the country, President Donald Trump reportedly responded by criticizing the use of human sources.

 

"These are people who have sold their souls and sold out their country," Trump said, according to reporting from a new tell-all book by famed Watergate journalist Bob Woodward that was obtained by NBC News.

 

"I don't trust human intelligence and these spies," Trump added. [...]

 

During the briefing, Clapper reportedly told Trump, without providing the sources' names, that one source was in enough jeopardy that the CIA wanted to move that person to safety, either through exfiltration to a different country or to the U.S.

 

But Clapper said the source refused, possibly for fear of harm to the person's family if he or she suddenly left the country, NBC reported from Woodward's book.

 

Trump replied: "I don't believe in human sources."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Op-Ed by someone within Trump administration (anonymously published, but identity known to NYT):

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

 

To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

 

But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

 

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

 

The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

 

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

 

In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

 

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

 

But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

 

From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

 

Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

 

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.

 

The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

 

etc etc etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Op-Ed by someone within Trump administration (anonymously published, but identity known to NYT):

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

 

To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

 

But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

 

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

 

The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

 

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

 

In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

 

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

 

But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

 

From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

 

Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

 

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.

 

The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

 

etc etc etc

 

LOL I hope the same thing happens to companies you guys invest in. Tesla maybe? Rogue employees, (let alone cowardly anonymous ones whom pen letters bragging about it), purposely sabotaging their employer is not something worthy of praise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Suppose you could de-link the authors' names from their books - Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury, Omarosa's Unhinged, and Woodward's Fear - scramble them up, then randomly attach the names to the books.  Would anyone be able to detect any differences? 

 

2. Next, pretend Trump was not President - insert random generic Republican.  Does not the current domestic and international situation call for a judgment of a better-than-average results for a Presidential administration?

 

Poor Woodward, late to the game, beaten to the scoop by the likes of Wolff and Omarosa.  He had a chance to provide insight into how the gossip of #1 above can co-exist with the outcomes of #2.  Instead, it's all anti-Trump confirmation bias of "he's stupid, he's crazy."

 

Who, an editor questions a potted plant years later, and the editor wasn't there? Oh my, that surely hurts his credibility...

 

Any surprise the people who look bad then claim it was all made up?

 

More on Woodward's credibility in the past:

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2013/03/bob_woodward_and_gene_sperling_what_woodward_s_john_belushi_book_can_tell.html

 

". . . in the final product, a lot of what Woodward writes comes off as being not quite right—some of it to the point where it can feel quite wrong. There’s no question that he frequently ferrets out information that other reporters don’t. But getting the scoop is only part of the equation. Once you have the facts, you have to present those facts in context and in proportion to other facts in order to accurately reflect reality. It’s here that Woodward fails."

 

"The simple truth of Wired is that Bob Woodward, deploying all of the talent and resources for which he is famous, produced something that is a failure as journalism. And when you imagine Woodward using the same approach to cover secret meetings about drone strikes and the budget sequester and other issues of vital national importance, well, you have to stop and shudder."

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

LOL I hope the same thing happens to companies you guys invest in. Tesla maybe? Rogue employees, (let alone cowardly anonymous ones whom pen letters bragging about it), purposely sabotaging their employer is not something worthy of praise.

 

Would never happen. One of the important things about investing is avoiding toxic management.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

LOL I hope the same thing happens to companies you guys invest in. Tesla maybe? Rogue employees, (let alone cowardly anonymous ones whom pen letters bragging about it), purposely sabotaging their employer is not something worthy of praise.

 

Would never happen. One of the important things about investing is avoiding toxic management.

 

Like Elon Musk and Steve Jobs.

 

https://www.cultofmac.com/507881/woz-aspects-steve-jobs-personality-trumpish/

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/doronlevin/2018/07/17/elon-musk-and-donald-trump-are-in-their-own-disruptive-spheres-are-birds-of-a-feather/#17be85c4649c

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL I hope the same thing happens to companies you guys invest in. Tesla maybe? Rogue employees, (let alone cowardly anonymous ones whom pen letters bragging about it), purposely sabotaging their employer is not something worthy of praise.

here's the thing. Those employees don't work for Donald Trump. They work for the American people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Op-Ed by someone within Trump administration (anonymously published, but identity known to NYT):

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

 

To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

 

But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

 

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

 

The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

 

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

 

In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

 

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

 

But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

 

From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

 

Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

 

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.

 

The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

 

etc etc etc

 

FAKE NEWS FROM THE FAILING NEW YORK TIMES

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has to be one of the most ridiculous lol pieces I've ever read. The author must have had a deadline, had nothing, and also had a date.... et voila.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it’s indeed mike pence who wrote it, then maybe GOPs are scheming to get pence to replace trump. Impeachment is coming.

 

Personally, I doubt it. Pence is just as bad on the fiscal side and even worse socially.

I find the impeachment talk hilarious. Donald Trump is not gonna get impeached. Almost nobody wants to impeach Donald Trump. The Republicans don't, the Democrats don't. Ironically, in relation to this post, Mike Pence is probably the only guy in Washington that probably wants Trump impeached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://nypost.com/2018/09/05/trump-demands-ny-times-reveal-identity-of-anonymous-official/

 

I'd wager they won't, must likely because the source is not real.

 

Revealing the source would basically put the newspaper out of business.

 

First off, I think citing anonymous sources should be illegal. It's basically grounds to make things up or let cowards run amok. Second, if NYT went out of business, would anyone besides Dougie or Liberty really care?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL I hope the same thing happens to companies you guys invest in. Tesla maybe? Rogue employees, (let alone cowardly anonymous ones whom pen letters bragging about it), purposely sabotaging their employer is not something worthy of praise.

 

People pledge allegiance to the US and the constitution, not to Trump. I certainly hope that there are antibodies in the system against incompetents and amoral authoritarians.

 

And if I ever invest in a company that is run by an idiot and a con man, I hope he'll get removed and replaced as fast as possible, because he can't be good for any business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, I think citing anonymous sources should be illegal. It's basically grounds to make things up or let cowards run amok. Second, if NYT went out of business, would anyone besides Dougie or Liberty really care?

 

What's your real name, Gregmal?

 

As a matter of fact, yes. The other thing I'll point out, again, taking a giant leap and assuming the NYT story is real, is that in any other position, all this thing is, is basically an employee bitching and moaning about their boss. Nothing more to it. Because it feeds the liberal hate machine, and is anti Trump, it's somehow something different and front page worthy. Logically that is odd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...