Bob Woodward's new book FEAR

[Dill]

(09-05-2018, 04:43 PM)GMDino Wrote:



Go argue with the Tillman family and the McCain family for awhile.

LOL  interesting stock responses to the question of Mattis lying.  I have much respect for the guy; he would give his life for his country, but I could definitely see him lying to preserve appearances.  "Marine general" Kelly too. 

[fredtoast]

(09-05-2018, 07:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm guessing the timing of this is not coincidental: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html



I put this here because this op-ed piece says some of the same things that come out in the book, and this is a big issue.

(09-06-2018, 12:06 AM)bfine32 Wrote: For those that support the validity of anonymous sources:

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

I hope no one real questions these thoughts. Because we can say they have the ability to lie.

Some of the stuff is true.  There have been multiple examples of Trump making public statements that contradict what his own policy is supposed to be.  So it is clear that a lot of policy decisions are being made that he knows nothing about.

There is also proof that he flip flops at a moments notice.

And this would also explain why he has such a public hard on for Putin, but his administration still keeps the sanctions in place.

So based on the facts we have observed I believe this story.  I just wonder if it is really a "high ranking official" or just a lower level staff member who has seen what is going on.

[fredtoast]

(09-05-2018, 10:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, but I do.



Saying he has a motive is far different than saying he "would lie".  You made a definitive statement.



We don't know if they have a motivation to tell the truth either.  As they are "anonymous" they are a complete unknown and thus, logically, they must be given no credence at all in either direction.


By being definitive about Mathis, which is far beyond your power to do and being ambiguous about an unknown person all the while giving them the benefit of the doubt.  Contradiction, thy name is Fred.

Yep.  I was right.  You don't know the definition of a contradiction.

I said Mattis would lie to save the country but I don't know the motives of the anonymous sources. 

How does one make the other false?

[Dill]

(09-05-2018, 07:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm guessing the timing of this is not coincidental: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html


What do y'all think of this?

I know that many will cheer at this, if true, because according to this senior official they are keeping us away from disaster. I admit, the fact that our country maintains a steady path is one that I am happy with. However, I take issue with non-elected officials subverting the will of the elected one. Whether you voted for Trump or not, whether you like him, or whether you think he is a loathsome toad, this is an undermining of our democracy. It is not the responsibility of the bureaucrats to serve this function. It is the responsibility of Congress and the judiciary to check the Executive when they go off the rails.

I mentioned in the Kavanaugh thread that policy gets made up and down the ladder, which is 100% true. But those policies are created to carry out the policies of the elected officials. When the bureaucrats are creating policy that is counter to what the elected official orders, we are in a constitutional crisis.

I put this here because this op-ed piece says some of the same things that come out in the book, and this is a big issue.

Yes, we are in a constitutional crisis.

I would agree bureaucrats are not supposed to create policy, but the issue here concerns the sanity and competence of the commander in chief. These accusations regarding Trump's mental health are not coming not from Democrats and "leftists" but from inside the administration.  How often has that happened before? 

What is Mattis supposed to do if Trump calls him the morning and tells him to assassinate a world leader--an illegal order--then calls him in the afternoon and says "nevermind"? What if Trump has to be talked out of firing Sessions twice in one day and sends out public tweets about the "disloyalty" to HIM of people sworn to uphold the Constitution? The problem is Trump. The sooner more people recognize that and get him out, the better.

Were the other branches checking his power sufficiently, there would be less alarm. But Republicans in Congress, after doing their best to muddy the Russia investigation and protect Trump, are now trying to rush through a judicial nominee who would reduce checks on presidential power.  Right now this trumps (pun intended) the problem of bureaucrats making policy.

[Dill]

(09-06-2018, 01:04 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Some of the stuff is true.  There have been multiple examples of Trump making public statements that contradict what his own policy is supposed to be.  So it is clear that a lot of policy decisions are being made that he knows nothing about.

There is also proof that he flip flops at a moments notice.

And this would also explain why he has such a public hard on for Putin, but his administration still keeps the sanctions in place.

So based on the facts we have observed I believe this story.  I just wonder if it is really a "high ranking official" or just a lower level staff member who has seen what is going on.

Trump's own public about-faces and misstatements corroborate what we hear in these behind-the-scenes reports from Wolf, Omarosa, and Woodward about the internal chaos of the White House and "adults" covering Trump's erratic behavior.

But I think there is a segment of the public that does not register all Trump's unforced errors as errors. They still find him credible, not Woodward and his "leftist" ilk.  Just watched the Ingraham Angle, where I learned Woodward's book and the anonymous NYT editorial today confirm what Fox has said all along about the deep-state conspiracy striving to bring Trump down.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-06-2018, 01:08 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Yep.  I was right.  You don't know the definition of a contradiction.

I said Mattis would lie to save the country but I don't know the motives of the anonymous sources. 

How does one make the other false?

You know definitively know what one person would do (an impossible task I assure you) but give anonymoose the benefit of the doubt.  Dumb argument, dumb post.  Contradiction.

[ballsofsteel]

What does the fact that Mattis is a retired general have to due with whether he would lie or not? He "served" his country for forty years.
So did millions of other people. He got paid. Its not like he volunteered. He is a career military man who like career politicians have lot of perks. Whats next, people are going to start calling him a hero? To claim he wouldn't lie to protect his job because he is a general is absurd. How about Kelly the other great "general" who has lied trying to cover for Trump? I'm not saying Mattis lied, unless Woodward has him on tape saying it maybe he didn't. Who knows, you might have a disgruntled person on that staff that Trump humiliated at one time who is out to get him. MAGA.

[Belsnickel]

Good grief, all this back and forth.

When a journalist uses an anonymous source, they are (supposed to have been) vetted thoroughly. They check their credentials, ask them questions to get an idea to their credibility, etc., etc. Good journalists don't take statements at face value. Woodward is a good journalist and has a ton of credibility.

The issues with journalism right now come more from click-baity headlines than it does from the actual investigative journalism that goes on. The unfortunate truth is that the perception has allowed the ill-informed to apply the negative view across the spectrum, which just isn't fair to folks like Woodward. This isn't to say one shouldn't question things, but dismissing them outright because of one side or the other is just bias.

[GMDino]

(09-06-2018, 01:02 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL  interesting stock responses to the question of Mattis lying.  I have much respect for the guy; he would give his life for his country, but I could definitely see him lying to preserve appearances.  "Marine general" Kelly too. 

Exactly.  He's human.

If had perfect ethics and morals he never would have accepted his position under Trump.  But he is a lifer and doing work for the POTUS is in his blood.

That in ay means he would not cover his own tracks.

[Vlad]

This book serves one purpose, to cater to those who are concerned only with hating Trump....nothing else matters to them, the economy, jobs etc...
Quite frankly I couldn't care less if it were all true.

In order to for this book to draw concern and be taken seriously by we rational Americans, it would have to coincide with an America that is in a current state of disaster on all fronts....but "sadly" it's not... "sadly" for Trump haters who long for Americas demise just so they can say "I told ya so".

From a commentary...
What we have is another gossip book from cowards too cowardly to come out and say what they want to say, probably fearing they'd get the slander and libel lawsuits they'd deserve.  But since the book trashes Trump, the media treat it as the truth. As if this hasn't been habitually happening in the mainstream press since the beginning of the Trump administration.


Remember Michael Wolff's hideous book.  Remember the strange claims from Omarosa Manigault-Newman's book.  It's rubbish and distortions.  How many anonymous sources have to give the media made up info before they quit printing it?

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/09/gushy_press_coverage_of_bob_woodwards_new_book_is_a_disgrace.html#ixzz5QK0jKvrs

 Woodwards credibility challenged.

This being the Woodward end of that Woodstein team, how is it at all different from the controversy Woodward ginned up for himself back in 1987, when he claimed to have gotten a "deathbed confession" from the dying former Reagan-era CIA director, Bill Casey, who allegedly said he knew about arms-trafficking during the Iran contra scandal because "I believed"? Casey's widow said that was an utter fabrication, something he made up to sell books.

In 2010, a former C.I.A. employee, who was part of Casey’s security detail, claimed Woodward “fabricated” the story after being turned away from Casey’s room at Georgetown University Hospital.
[/i]

https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-...n-interception

[Vlad]

(09-06-2018, 08:10 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Good grief, all this back and forth.

When a journalist uses an anonymous source, they are (supposed to have been) vetted thoroughly. They check their credentials, ask them questions to get an idea to their credibility, etc., etc. Good journalists don't take statements at face value. Woodward is a good journalist and has a ton of credibility.

The issues with journalism right now come more from click-baity headlines than it does from the actual investigative journalism that goes on. The unfortunate truth is that the perception has allowed the ill-informed to apply the negative view across the spectrum, which just isn't fair to folks like Woodward. This isn't to say one shouldn't question things, but dismissing them outright because of one side or the other is just bias.

True.

Curious, can evidence from an anonymous source no matter how thoroughly vetted  be used against a plaintiff in a court of law?
Probably not my guess. Amounts to hearsay...take it with a grain of salt...same approach I would take towards anonymous sources in a book.

[GMDino]

(09-06-2018, 10:09 AM)Vlad Wrote: True.

Curious, can evidence from an anonymous source no matter how thoroughly vetted  be used against a plaintiff in a court of law?
Probably not my guess. Amounts to hearsay...take it with a grain of salt...same approach I would take towards anonymous sources in a book.

Evidence from a known source can be taken with a grain of salt.

[GMDino]

(09-05-2018, 07:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm guessing the timing of this is not coincidental: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html


What do y'all think of this?

I know that many will cheer at this, if true, because according to this senior official they are keeping us away from disaster. I admit, the fact that our country maintains a steady path is one that I am happy with. However, I take issue with non-elected officials subverting the will of the elected one. Whether you voted for Trump or not, whether you like him, or whether you think he is a loathsome toad, this is an undermining of our democracy. It is not the responsibility of the bureaucrats to serve this function. It is the responsibility of Congress and the judiciary to check the Executive when they go off the rails.

I mentioned in the Kavanaugh thread that policy gets made up and down the ladder, which is 100% true. But those policies are created to carry out the policies of the elected officials. When the bureaucrats are creating policy that is counter to what the elected official orders, we are in a constitutional crisis.

I put this here because this op-ed piece says some of the same things that come out in the book, and this is a big issue.

As to some of the things said about Trump's behavior:

Trump is described..."as unprincipled and "amoral," the author wrote: "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."


When he speaks public (off script) that is exactly Trump.


As to Matt's take on it:  


I'd bet that every admin has people within it that do the same.  Trying to steer the POTUS is directions away from their own predilections when those may be unwise.


And as usual I can see both sides of this argument.


Is that "right"?  I don't think so.  I think the POTUS should be allowed to fail or succeed on their own.  But then I also think that the POTUS should surround themself with people who understand the things that they do not to HELP guide them.


This president has shown no effort to learn things he does not know.  Anyone trying to tell him he's wrong is probably quickly rebuffed.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-06-2018, 09:18 AM)GMDino Wrote: Exactly.  He's human.

If had perfect ethics and morals he never would have accepted his position under Trump. 

God help us all if you're the arbiter of what makes a person moral and ethical.  I'm loving the definitive statements from you and Fred.  The amount of knowledge you guys have that one could not possibly possess is quite impressive.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-06-2018, 08:10 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Good grief, all this back and forth.

When a journalist uses an anonymous source, they are (supposed to have been) vetted thoroughly. They check their credentials, ask them questions to get an idea to their credibility, etc., etc. Good journalists don't take statements at face value. Woodward is a good journalist and has a ton of credibility.

The issues with journalism right now come more from click-baity headlines than it does from the actual investigative journalism that goes on. The unfortunate truth is that the perception has allowed the ill-informed to apply the negative view across the spectrum, which just isn't fair to folks like Woodward. This isn't to say one shouldn't question things, but dismissing them outright because of one side or the other is just bias.

I don't see anyone dismissing them outright, I do think a person like Mattis deserves more credibility than an anonymous source, even one vetted by Woodward.  The timing of the book also gives me pause.  Sure interest in politics is highest around election time, so there are economic reasons.  However, releasing it so close to a mid term that so many are calling a critical election reeks to me of attempting to subvert public opinion.  Nothing about this feels right and it plays right into the belief among many that the will of the electorate is being subverted by career bureaucrats and the media elite.  

I also agree with your point about the journalism profession.  The problem is there are far more click bait journalists than there are old school ones like Woodward.  I'm afraid the latter won't be with us much longer. 

[GMDino]

(09-06-2018, 11:21 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: God help us all if you're the arbiter of what makes a person moral and ethical.  I'm loving the definitive statements from you and Fred.  The amount of knowledge you guys have that one could not possibly possess is quite impressive.

Personal attacks on me (again) aside:  Dispute what I said.

Mattis may be the greatest man that ever lived...and still have told a lie.  Or still bad mouthed a person and then denied it.

I have ethics and morals.  Probably more than you would like to admit.  And I've bad mouthed someone.  I've lied.  I'm human.

I don't pick and choose an occupation or look at someone's life work and say"Yep...that guy would never lie about anything" because I understand the human experience.

Do you think people ever thought all those Catholic Priests were lying about those kids they molested?

Thanks and have a good day.

[Dill]

(09-06-2018, 09:43 AM)Vlad Wrote: This book serves one purpose, to cater to those who are concerned only with hating Trump....nothing else matters to them, the economy, jobs etc...
Quite frankly I couldn't care less if it were all true.

In order to for this book to draw concern and be taken seriously by we rational Americans, it would have to coincide with an America that is in a current state of disaster on all fronts....but "sadly" it's not... "sadly" for Trump haters who long for Americas demise just so they can say "I told ya so".

From a commentary...
What we have is another gossip book from cowards too cowardly to come out and say what they want to say, probably fearing they'd get the slander and libel lawsuits they'd deserve.  But since the book trashes Trump, the media treat it as the truth. As if this hasn't been habitually happening in the mainstream press since the beginning of the Trump administration.

Remember Michael Wolff's hideous book.  Remember the strange claims from Omarosa Manigault-Newman's book.  It's rubbish and distortions.  How many anonymous sources have to give the media made up info before they quit printing it?

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/09/gushy_press_coverage_of_bob_woodwards_new_book_is_a_disgrace.html#ixzz5QK0jKvrs

I remember Katrina Pierson calling omarosa a liar--until she produced a tape.

This book's one purpose is to let Americans know about the chaos in the WH, the incompetence of the C-in-C and the risk he poses to national security--all of which trumps "the economy" which has been improving since 2009.

You "couldn't care less" if the country is run by an angry manchild who cannot focus on policy and spends most of his day tweeting and watching Fox news.  Rational Americans  LOL.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-06-2018, 11:31 AM)GMDino Wrote: Personal attacks on me (again) aside:

Dear lord, you are a professional victim, all the while spewing venom.

 

Quote:Dispute what I said.

Gladly.

Quote:Mattis may be the greatest man that ever lived...and still have told a lie.  Or still bad mouthed a person and then denied it.

Ahh, he may have told a lie now.  See, that's different than saying he definitely lied, like your boy Fred stated.

Quote:I have ethics and morals.  Probably more than you would like to admit.  And I've bad mouthed someone.  I've lied.  I'm human.

I'll take your word for it.  However, what you said is Mattis cannot be a very moral or ethical person as he accepted a cabinet position under Trump.  Again a definitive declaration.  You stated something as a fact that cannot be verified as a fact.  That makes it your opinion.  Hence my attacking your statement and your history of making such statements.

Quote:I don't pick and choose an occupation or look at someone's life work and say"Yep...that guy would never lie about anything" because I understand the human experience.

A person's profession does not automatically make them a moral or an ethical person.  That being said certain professions require a degree of discipline, hard work and sound ethics in order to succeed.  

Quote:Do you think people ever thought all those Catholic Priests were lying about those kids they molested?

Given the history of the Catholic church I'd certainly hope so.

Quote:Thanks and have a good day.

Thank you, you do the same.  

[Dill]

(09-06-2018, 08:10 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Good grief, all this back and forth.

When a journalist uses an anonymous source, they are (supposed to have been) vetted thoroughly. They check their credentials, ask them questions to get an idea to their credibility, etc., etc. Good journalists don't take statements at face value. Woodward is a good journalist and has a ton of credibility.

The issues with journalism right now come more from click-baity headlines than it does from the actual investigative journalism that goes on. The unfortunate truth is that the perception has allowed the ill-informed to apply the negative view across the spectrum, which just isn't fair to folks like Woodward. This isn't to say one shouldn't question things, but dismissing them outright because of one side or the other is just bias.

On the money.  I would only tweak this a bit by saying that many of the "ill-informed" are willfully so. 

Journalists are presumed "liberals" first and so discounted from the get go.  That skepticism of professional journalism is just the flipside of uncritical belief in Team Trump statements.  "Look at what is in his heart, not what he says!"  

[Vas Deferens]

(09-06-2018, 09:43 AM)Vlad Wrote: This book serves one purpose, to cater to those who are concerned only with hating Trump....nothing else matters to them, the economy, jobs etc...
Quite frankly I couldn't care less if it were all true.

In order to for this book to draw concern and be taken seriously by we rational Americans, it would have to coincide with an America that is in a current state of disaster on all fronts....but "sadly" it's not... "sadly" for Trump haters who long for Americas demise just so they can say "I told ya so".

This speaks volumes.