Woodward trashes the NYT op-ed

Guntsu · 2018-09-10T14:35:36.823Z

A summary theme from a senior white house official, fascinating…

“Two track presidency”

“Policy accomplishments in spite of not because of”

Sounds about Trump

zantax · 2018-09-10T14:38:45.698Z

margaretms2:

There’s nothing stunning about this and he doesn’t really “trash” the op-ed.

If you want to read actual critiques or even “trashings” of the op-ed, you could check in with reliable sources of liberal and leftish opinion, like Chris Hayes, who (like a lot of people, including standard issue liberal Jon Chait) viewed at as a cowardly, self-defeating attempt to whitewash “conservatism” from the filth of Trump:

https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/1037478283531706371?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

Or my personal favorite, which I think is more on point, from Ed Burmilla, aka Gin and Tacos:

https://twitter.com/gin_and_tacos/status/1037431908165185541

Or there’s the Intercept:

Dear Anonymous Trump Official, There Is No Redemption.

Or there’s New York Magazine

The NY Times Op-ed By a Rogue Trump Official Is Unethical

I agree with the quoted excerpts.

Private_Idaho · 2018-09-10T15:21:23.312Z

Woodward is salty that the NYT stunt eclipsed his book launch

JayJay · 2018-09-10T16:03:07.284Z

At one point, Trump drafted a tweet saying the United States planned to “pull our dependents from South Korea — family members of the 28,000 people there,” Woodward told CBS.

“At that moment, there was a sense of profound alarm in the Pentagon leadership that 'My God, one tweet and we have reliable information that the North Koreans are going to read this as ‘an attack is imminent.’”

If true, this is indeed terrifying and indeed could very well have led to disaster had that tweet not been caught before publishing it.

The problem with trying to getbyour message out via Twitter.

TommyLucchese · 2018-09-10T16:10:43.569Z

madasheck:

Hey Bob, did the public need to know Deep Throat’s identity

Deep Throat was deep background, not an anonymous op-ed though.

Plasmaball · 2018-09-10T16:59:36.071Z

I dont personally agree with bob.i think he confirms this thing in his own book with what cohn did. Might be just bob waaaa wanting the spot light.

BigBear · 2018-09-10T17:06:31.254Z

What are the “hit pieces” here, and what is that, exactly?

TommyLucchese · 2018-09-10T17:20:48.590Z

Plasmaball:

I dont personally agree with bob.i think he confirms this thing in his own book with what cohn did. Might be just bob waaaa wanting the spot light.

By the old school journalism rules he’s not actually wrong though.

Roxiebelle · 2018-09-10T17:26:55.930Z

BillBrown:

The stunning Bob Woodward stunningly trashes the stunning NYT op-ed.

That’s because it stunningly “trumped” his book which basically will say the same type things! It also “trumps” what he is most famous for which is “deep throat” because now “sore throat” is getting all the press.

madasheck · 2018-09-10T19:21:11.905Z

zantax:

madasheck:

zantax:

madasheck:

zantax:

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.

What was in the op-ed wasn’t anything but gossip, he wasn’t disclosing details of a criminal conspiracy. Unless it was his own.

There was no gossip there. That’s some strange word smithing going on there.

Opinion | I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration - The New York Times

Did I miss some sort of serious allegation of criminal wrong doing in the piece?

Revealing an unstable president isn’t enough for you?

One anonymous mans assessment, not really news if you ask me.

Must be lonely for you.

DougBH · 2018-09-10T19:29:30.352Z

It just isn’t rare or surprising that a major boss with many employees is gong to be hated by some and admired by others. We have many of the top levels saying that all these rumors by Woodward and this anonymous letter just aren’t true and not what its like in the WH.
No doubt Woodward could find some bitter people in there. Wonder if Omerosa was one of the people he interviewed?
Someone else could have cherry picked another group of employees that would have given a completely different view.
Now if the anonymous letter writter really has something, he needs to come forward now and reveal it or just disappear.

madasheck · 2018-09-10T20:00:41.966Z

TommyLucchese:

madasheck:

Hey Bob, did the public need to know Deep Throat’s identity

Deep Throat was deep background, not an anonymous op-ed though.

He was still a source, though.

madasheck · 2018-09-10T20:04:25.221Z

DougBH:

It just isn’t rare or surprising that a major boss with many employees is gong to be hated by some and admired by others. We have many of the top levels saying that all these rumors by Woodward and this anonymous letter just aren’t true and not what its like in the WH.
No doubt Woodward could find some bitter people in there. Wonder if Omerosa was one of the people he interviewed?
Someone else could have cherry picked another group of employees that would have given a completely different view.
Now if the anonymous letter writter really has something, he needs to come forward now and reveal it or just disappear.

Your scenario isn’t realistic. We’re not talking about just any old boss, first of all. Second, the fact that this person came out and said this is news. There probably are people who like (God forbid) what Trump is doing, but that doesn’t change the significance of this, much as you’d apparently like to do that. Finally, I suspect we’ll find out who this is but not because he/she comes forward.

madasheck · 2018-09-10T20:05:39.541Z

Private_Idaho:

Woodward is salty that the NYT stunt eclipsed his book launch

I think that’s probably true, though I don’t think it has completely. We’ll see when the book is released.

Plasmaball · 2018-09-10T20:18:04.551Z

Yeah…I know…

Plasmaball · 2018-09-10T20:21:18.883Z

Of course they are going to say they never made those statements. I mean seriously we arent stupid nor are they.

That being said you clearly dont understand how Woodward does his work and how though he is.

So who cares.

reflechissez · 2018-09-10T20:57:10.946Z

DougBH:

It just isn’t rare or surprising that a major boss with many employees is gong to be hated by some and admired by others. We have many of the top levels saying that all these rumors by Woodward and this anonymous letter just aren’t true and not what its like in the WH.
No doubt Woodward could find some bitter people in there. Wonder if Omerosa was one of the people he interviewed?
Someone else could have cherry picked another group of employees that would have given a completely different view.
Now if the anonymous letter writter really has something, he needs to come forward now and reveal it or just disappear.

We are not talking about a “boss with many employees.” We’re talking about people who work directly for/with the POTUS. You will spin anything.

DougBH · 2018-09-10T20:57:57.619Z

Plasmaball:

Of course they are going to say they never made those statements. I mean seriously we arent stupid nor are they.

That being said you clearly dont understand how Woodward does his work and how though he is.

So who cares.

My guess is neither did you when he was saying the Clinton foundation was thoroughly corrupt.

DougBH · 2018-09-10T20:59:25.680Z

reflechissez:

We are not talking about a “boss with many employees.” We’re talking about people who work directly for/with the POTUS. You will spin anything.

You don’t know with whom Woodward talked, for the most part. Neither do I. Did he accept hearsay? Rumors? We just don’t know.

reflechissez · 2018-09-10T21:02:20.571Z

DougBH:

reflechissez:

We are not talking about a “boss with many employees.” We’re talking about people who work directly for/with the POTUS. You will spin anything.

You don’t know with whom Woodward talked, for the most part. Neither do I. Did he accept hearsay? Rumors? We just don’t know.

It’s all lies, innuendo and gossip. Go back to sleep. Don’t worry your pretty little head about it.