Woodward trashes the NYT op-ed

[party-free]

@BillBrown

Is he? Why do you think so? I’m just reporting what he said. Stunning, isn’t it?

Why are you reporting his words, then? What significance does his opinion hold over yours or mine on the situation?

[madasheck]

@Plasmaball

Woodward is saying that because of how he sourced things and plays the game. He is like a prosecutor. He has the evidence already, he wants to see where you slip up.

So I assume in woodwards mind it’s not it’s not credible because it cant be backed up.

The Times knows the ID of the person. Am I missing something? If they didn’t, that would undermine their Op-ed. But they do.

[The_Original_Birther]

@madasheck

@BillBrown

@The_Original_Birther

@BillBrown

@The_Original_Birther

So Woodward is to be trusted again…

Is he? Why do you think so? I’m just reporting what he said. Stunning, isn’t it?

He’s always trusted…so you believe this but not what he said about trump???

I haven’t said either of those things. I think you win the 1st liberal lie of the day award.
Good work- two more of those awards and you win the Order of Marx.

Nice work to show the emptiness of your argument. Got a real argument there or is all you have childish talk and “liar liar pants on fire”?

You think I’ll get an answer, or deflection…

[madasheck]

@The_Original_Birther

@madasheck

@BillBrown

@The_Original_Birther

@BillBrown

@The_Original_Birther

So Woodward is to be trusted again…

Is he? Why do you think so? I’m just reporting what he said. Stunning, isn’t it?

He’s always trusted…so you believe this but not what he said about trump???

I haven’t said either of those things. I think you win the 1st liberal lie of the day award.
Good work- two more of those awards and you win the Order of Marx.

Nice work to show the emptiness of your argument. Got a real argument there or is all you have childish talk and “liar liar pants on fire”?

You think I’ll get an answer, or deflection…

I bet it’ll be “liberal blah blah” …

[SimplyTrying]

What a quandary for trumpers - what team should they be on - Woodward or anonymous Op Ed.

[BillBrown]

@The_Original_Birther

@BillBrown

@The_Original_Birther

@BillBrown

@The_Original_Birther

So Woodward is to be trusted again…

Is he? Why do you think so? I’m just reporting what he said. Stunning, isn’t it?

He’s always trusted…so you believe this but not what he said about trump???

I haven’t said either of those things. I think you win the 1st liberal lie of the day award.
Good work- two more of those awards and you win the Order of Marx.

I asked a question…I didn’t state anything…so I’ll ask again

He’s always trusted…so you believe this but not what he said about trump???

I’ve already answered that. I’m not going to play Whack -A-Lie this morning.

[The_Original_Birther]

@BillBrown

@The_Original_Birther

@BillBrown

@The_Original_Birther

@BillBrown

@The_Original_Birther

So Woodward is to be trusted again…

Is he? Why do you think so? I’m just reporting what he said. Stunning, isn’t it?

He’s always trusted…so you believe this but not what he said about trump???

I haven’t said either of those things. I think you win the 1st liberal lie of the day award.
Good work- two more of those awards and you win the Order of Marx.

I asked a question…I didn’t state anything…so I’ll ask again

He’s always trusted…so you believe this but not what he said about trump???

I’ve already answered that. I’m not going to play Whack -A-Lie this morning.

I think I missed it can you repeat it…

[madasheck]

@BillBrown

@The_Original_Birther

@BillBrown

@The_Original_Birther

@BillBrown

@The_Original_Birther

So Woodward is to be trusted again…

Is he? Why do you think so? I’m just reporting what he said. Stunning, isn’t it?

He’s always trusted…so you believe this but not what he said about trump???

I haven’t said either of those things. I think you win the 1st liberal lie of the day award.
Good work- two more of those awards and you win the Order of Marx.

I asked a question…I didn’t state anything…so I’ll ask again

He’s always trusted…so you believe this but not what he said about trump???

I’ve already answered that. I’m not going to play Whack -A-Lie this morning.

Ooops, you got cornered and won’t answer. Oopsie.

[The_Original_Birther]

@madasheck

@BillBrown

@The_Original_Birther

@BillBrown

@The_Original_Birther

@BillBrown

@The_Original_Birther

So Woodward is to be trusted again…

Is he? Why do you think so? I’m just reporting what he said. Stunning, isn’t it?

He’s always trusted…so you believe this but not what he said about trump???

I haven’t said either of those things. I think you win the 1st liberal lie of the day award.
Good work- two more of those awards and you win the Order of Marx.

I asked a question…I didn’t state anything…so I’ll ask again

He’s always trusted…so you believe this but not what he said about trump???

I’ve already answered that. I’m not going to play Whack -A-Lie this morning.

Ooops, you got cornered and won’t answer. Oopsie.

Why is it always this easy…

[The_Original_Birther]

@SimplyTrying

What a quandary for trumpers - what team should they be on - Woodward or anonymous Op Ed.

[madasheck]

@The_Original_Birther

@madasheck

@BillBrown

@The_Original_Birther

@BillBrown

@The_Original_Birther

@BillBrown

@The_Original_Birther

So Woodward is to be trusted again…

Is he? Why do you think so? I’m just reporting what he said. Stunning, isn’t it?

He’s always trusted…so you believe this but not what he said about trump???

I haven’t said either of those things. I think you win the 1st liberal lie of the day award.
Good work- two more of those awards and you win the Order of Marx.

I asked a question…I didn’t state anything…so I’ll ask again

He’s always trusted…so you believe this but not what he said about trump???

I’ve already answered that. I’m not going to play Whack -A-Lie this morning.

Ooops, you got cornered and won’t answer. Oopsie.

Why is it always this easy…

It would seem he thought he had a gotcha moment to play up and get some support from the Trump cheerleaders here. He didn’t think it through.

[Plasmaball]

Even with them knowing…I’m just basing it off how Woodward does things. It’s all speculation…

[madasheck]

Here’s a lot more of the interview cited in the OP. Woodward’s argument is set in the fact he doesn’t know who the writer is. But the Times wouldn’t have published it without knowing. If they did, he has an argument. But like he did with Deep Throat, they know.

Bob Woodward: "People better wake up to what's going on" in the Oval Office

[Mountain_Soldier]

@madasheck

@Plasmaball

Woodward is saying that because of how he sourced things and plays the game. He is like a prosecutor. He has the evidence already, he wants to see where you slip up.

So I assume in woodwards mind it’s not it’s not credible because it cant be backed up.

The Times knows the ID of the person. Am I missing something? If they didn’t, that would undermine their Op-ed. But they do.

The Times says they know the identity of the person.

[madasheck]

@Mountain_Soldier

@madasheck

@Plasmaball

Woodward is saying that because of how he sourced things and plays the game. He is like a prosecutor. He has the evidence already, he wants to see where you slip up.

So I assume in woodwards mind it’s not it’s not credible because it cant be backed up.

The Times knows the ID of the person. Am I missing something? If they didn’t, that would undermine their Op-ed. But they do.

The Times says they know the identity of the person.

You say that like you doubt it. They know who it is. They wouldn’t have published it if they didn’t. Journalists don’t use anonymous sources to make things up.

[Mountain_Soldier]

@madasheck

@Mountain_Soldier

@madasheck

@Plasmaball

Woodward is saying that because of how he sourced things and plays the game. He is like a prosecutor. He has the evidence already, he wants to see where you slip up.

So I assume in woodwards mind it’s not it’s not credible because it cant be backed up.

The Times knows the ID of the person. Am I missing something? If they didn’t, that would undermine their Op-ed. But they do.

The Times says they know the identity of the person.

You say that like you doubt it. They know who it is. They wouldn’t have published it if they didn’t. Journalists don’t use anonymous sources to make things up.

The N.Y. Times has already done that. And CBS.

[madasheck]

@Mountain_Soldier

@madasheck

@Mountain_Soldier

@madasheck

@Plasmaball

Woodward is saying that because of how he sourced things and plays the game. He is like a prosecutor. He has the evidence already, he wants to see where you slip up.

So I assume in woodwards mind it’s not it’s not credible because it cant be backed up.

The Times knows the ID of the person. Am I missing something? If they didn’t, that would undermine their Op-ed. But they do.

The Times says they know the identity of the person.

You say that like you doubt it. They know who it is. They wouldn’t have published it if they didn’t. Journalists don’t use anonymous sources to make things up.

The N.Y. Times has already done that. And CBS.

When? 10char

[zantax]

@madasheck

@BillBrown

I believe the leftist key-word is “stunning” for these two anonymous hit pieces.
That being the case, here goes:
The stunning Bob Woodward stunningly trashes the stunning NYT op-ed.
Woodward says it doesn’t meet journalistic standards and shouldn’t have been published.

https://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Watergates-Woodward-says-Times-Trump-op-ed-not-up-to-his-standards-566904

Seems the rightist – aka the OP – didn’t get the meaning of Woodward’s words. He said this.

“It’s very important who it is. It’s very important whether this is somebody who witnessed and participated,” Woodward said. "I would say 'Okay, name me who was there.

The NYT knows the person. What Woodward is saying is that the public needs to know the name. Sorry, but he’s wrong. They don’t. Hey Bob, did the public need to know Deep Throat’s identity? You didn’t think they did. You don’t need to know the op-ed writer’s identity. Same situation as Deep Throat.

And it’s not stunning unless you don’t know how journalism works.

No, it isn’t the same thing as deep throat, protecting his identity was done because he was disclosing a criminal conspiracy and he claimed to fear for his life. This op-ed is little more than gossip and self-aggrandizement.

[Mountain_Soldier]

@madasheck

@Mountain_Soldier

@madasheck

@Mountain_Soldier

@madasheck

@Plasmaball

Woodward is saying that because of how he sourced things and plays the game. He is like a prosecutor. He has the evidence already, he wants to see where you slip up.

So I assume in woodwards mind it’s not it’s not credible because it cant be backed up.

The Times knows the ID of the person. Am I missing something? If they didn’t, that would undermine their Op-ed. But they do.

The Times says they know the identity of the person.

You say that like you doubt it. They know who it is. They wouldn’t have published it if they didn’t. Journalists don’t use anonymous sources to make things up.

The N.Y. Times has already done that. And CBS.

When? 10char

Blair? Rather - Bush national guard fakes.

[madasheck]

@zantax

@madasheck

@BillBrown

I believe the leftist key-word is “stunning” for these two anonymous hit pieces.
That being the case, here goes:
The stunning Bob Woodward stunningly trashes the stunning NYT op-ed.
Woodward says it doesn’t meet journalistic standards and shouldn’t have been published.

https://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Watergates-Woodward-says-Times-Trump-op-ed-not-up-to-his-standards-566904

Seems the rightist – aka the OP – didn’t get the meaning of Woodward’s words. He said this.

“It’s very important who it is. It’s very important whether this is somebody who witnessed and participated,” Woodward said. "I would say 'Okay, name me who was there.

The NYT knows the person. What Woodward is saying is that the public needs to know the name. Sorry, but he’s wrong. They don’t. Hey Bob, did the public need to know Deep Throat’s identity? You didn’t think they did. You don’t need to know the op-ed writer’s identity. Same situation as Deep Throat.

And it’s not stunning unless you don’t know how journalism works.

No, it isn’t the same thing as deep throat, protecting his identity was done because he was disclosing a criminal conspiracy and he claimed to fear for his life. This op-ed is little more than gossip and self-aggrandizement.

How? The writer has first-hand knowledge of what was in the op-ed.