PDA

View Full Version : Woodward's Verdict: Obama Didn't Lead



mikesilvia
09-16-2012, 10:00 AM
Bob Woodward has been telling on presidents since he and Carl Bernstein teamed up to reveal the Watergate misdeeds of President Richard Nixon in the mid-1970s, and he's at it again. This time, it's President Barack Obama who is feeling the sting, not because of criminal acts, but because of ineptness, arrogance and other attributes that in combination spell peril for America.The Washington Post associate editor may not put it quite that way in his new book, "The Price of Politics." But when you've finished reading a published excerpt and summaries, you can either...

More... (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/09/16/woodwards_verdict_obama_didnt_lead_115466.html)

habsheaven
09-16-2012, 10:36 AM
More garbage from a guy (Jay Ambrose) that has nothing good to say about Obama. Now he reads Woodward's book and turns around and tells us what Woodward was really saying, even though Woodward doesn't say it. Just so he can further his own agenda. Only simple minds will buy into it. Anyone with intelligence will see it for what it is, just more drivel disguised as coming from Woodward when it is not. That's what happens when a writer has no credibility himself. He tags on to someone with credibility and overlays his own opinions hoping no one will notice.

AUTaxMan
09-16-2012, 03:29 PM
More garbage from a guy (Jay Ambrose) that has nothing good to say about Obama. Now he reads Woodward's book and turns around and tells us what Woodward was really saying, even though Woodward doesn't say it. Just so he can further his own agenda. Only simple minds will buy into it. Anyone with intelligence will see it for what it is, just more drivel disguised as coming from Woodward when it is not. That's what happens when a writer has no credibility himself. He tags on to someone with credibility and overlays his own opinions hoping no one will notice.

Have you read the excerpt?

habsheaven
09-16-2012, 03:48 PM
Have you read the excerpt?

No, have you? Not sure why you even asked. I wasn't commenting on the excerpt, I was commenting on the weak attempt of the writer to attach his opinion to the name of someone more credible.

AUTaxMan
09-16-2012, 04:51 PM
No, have you? Not sure why you even asked. I wasn't commenting on the excerpt, I was commenting on the weak attempt of the writer to attach his opinion to the name of someone more credible.

What if what he says is in line with what Woodward says in the excerpt? Since you don't know what the excerpt says, how can you criticize him?

Wickabee
09-16-2012, 05:43 PM
What if what he says is in line with what Woodward says in the excerpt? Since you don't know what the excerpt says, how can you criticize him?

I'll give you another chance to answer. Have you read it? If you have, then fine. Since you declined to answer, I imagine you haven't. Since you haven't, I have to ask how can you question him. If you want to challenge him, read it and go that route. This is what I have been talking about with you. You want everyone to bring all the info to the table, but refuse to bring any yourself. You talk down to people who "haven't read the excerpt" but refuse to answer whether you read it yourself. How can you challenge him when you yourself have no clue?

Instead of relying on everyone else to bring everything to your doorstep (over and over) PLEASE go read it yourself, and if it's challenge worthy, then proceed.

drtom2005
09-16-2012, 05:57 PM
"Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again. (http://www.sportscardforum.com/quotation/everything_has_been_said_before-but_since_nobody/10203.html)

Andre Gide


Something to think about for people. Please do your own research and stop repeating talking points.

AUTaxMan
09-16-2012, 07:28 PM
I'll give you another chance to answer. Have you read it? If you have, then fine. Since you declined to answer, I imagine you haven't. Since you haven't, I have to ask how can you question him. If you want to challenge him, read it and go that route. This is what I have been talking about with you. You want everyone to bring all the info to the table, but refuse to bring any yourself. You talk down to people who "haven't read the excerpt" but refuse to answer whether you read it yourself. How can you challenge him when you yourself have no clue?

Instead of relying on everyone else to bring everything to your doorstep (over and over) PLEASE go read it yourself, and if it's challenge worthy, then proceed.

I have read it. I read it the day it came out, and I read it again today. But my question was not about the content of the excerpt. It was about how you can criticize a critique if you haven't actually read the material being critiqued. Of course, habs could be right without having read it. A stopped clock is right twice a day. In this case, though, habs is both unfounded in his criticism, since he hasn't read it, and he is also substantively wrong, since the conclusions reached by the author in the article posted above (although you may not necessarily agree with them or may reach different logical conclusions yourself) are logical, based on the material that has been published and the interviews that Woodward has given promoting the book. If habs is simply saying that he doesn't feel that the author is worthy of writing an article on the woodward book because he doesn't like the author, I think that's a pretty ridiculous opinion.

habsheaven
09-16-2012, 09:01 PM
I have read it. I read it the day it came out, and I read it again today. But my question was not about the content of the excerpt. It was about how you can criticize a critique if you haven't actually read the material being critiqued. Of course, habs could be right without having read it. A stopped clock is right twice a day. In this case, though, habs is both unfounded in his criticism, since he hasn't read it, and he is also substantively wrong, since the conclusions reached by the author in the article posted above (although you may not necessarily agree with them or may reach different logical conclusions yourself) are logical, based on the material that has been published and the interviews that Woodward has given promoting the book. If habs is simply saying that he doesn't feel that the author is worthy of writing an article on the woodward book because he doesn't like the author, I think that's a pretty ridiculous opinion.

There's nothing unfounded in my criticism. He says so himself right here:

Bob Woodward has been telling on presidents since he and Carl Bernstein teamed up to reveal the Watergate misdeeds of President Richard Nixon in the mid-1970s, and he's at it again. This time, it's President Barack Obama who is feeling the sting, not because of criminal acts, but because of ineptness, arrogance and other attributes that in combination spell peril for America.
The Washington Post associate editor may not put it quite that way in his new book, "The Price of Politics." But when you've finished reading a published excerpt and summaries, you can either indulge in liberal sympathy, saying the poor president has had the misfortune of having to deal with human beings more ordinary than he is, or you can face the truth: He's in over his head.

He then goes on to tell you his interpretation of what Woodward is saying, linking his opinion to Woodward's as if Woodward would agree they are one in the same. If I had read it, I am sure I would be accused of "indulging in liberal sympathy" because my opinion would differ from the writer of the article.

AUTaxMan
09-16-2012, 10:47 PM
You take that one line and assume that the author takes poetic license with his entire analysis?

Wickabee
09-16-2012, 10:54 PM
I have read it. I read it the day it came out, and I read it again today. But my question was not about the content of the excerpt. It was about how you can criticize a critique if you haven't actually read the material being critiqued. Of course, habs could be right without having read it. A stopped clock is right twice a day. In this case, though, habs is both unfounded in his criticism, since he hasn't read it, and he is also substantively wrong, since the conclusions reached by the author in the article posted above (although you may not necessarily agree with them or may reach different logical conclusions yourself) are logical, based on the material that has been published and the interviews that Woodward has given promoting the book. If habs is simply saying that he doesn't feel that the author is worthy of writing an article on the woodward book because he doesn't like the author, I think that's a pretty ridiculous opinion.

If you did read it, why did you completely ignore the question?
A guy who demands everyone else answer his questions is bad enough. That same guy never answering questions asked of him is worse.

habsheaven
09-16-2012, 11:38 PM
You take that one line and assume that the author takes poetic license with his entire analysis?

You are not grasping what I am saying.

AUTaxMan
09-17-2012, 10:21 AM
You are not grasping what I am saying.

No, I am. I think your judgment of the author here is off though. I don't think he's attributing any particular position to Woodward. I think he's saying you can read the book and come to one of two conclusions.

AUTaxMan
09-17-2012, 10:21 AM
If you did read it, why did you completely ignore the question?
A guy who demands everyone else answer his questions is bad enough. That same guy never answering questions asked of him is worse.

What is the question? Was it in another thread?

Wickabee
09-17-2012, 10:57 AM
What is the question? Was it in another thread?

Nope.
You've now answered it so you're going to say what I'm saying makes no sense ignoring the fact the point was brought up before you answered it. You did need to be asked twice though.

AUTaxMan
09-17-2012, 11:20 AM
Nope.
You've now answered it so you're going to say what I'm saying makes no sense ignoring the fact the point was brought up before you answered it. You did need to be asked twice though.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. What was your question? I must have missed it.

Wickabee
09-17-2012, 11:33 AM
What was your question? I must have missed it.

It wasn't my question. It was Habs' and it was the same question you asked him. I'm done with this line here. Just don't expect everyone to answer all your questions when you only answer about 30% of the ones asked you, is my point.

AUTaxMan
09-17-2012, 11:42 AM
It wasn't my question. It was Habs' and it was the same question you asked him. I'm done with this line here. Just don't expect everyone to answer all your questions when you only answer about 30% of the ones asked you, is my point.

OK. I was confused about what you were asking. You need to communicate better.

Wickabee
09-17-2012, 12:04 PM
OK. I was confused about what you were asking. You need to communicate better.

It's been pretty clear what question I was talking about. The only question you've been asked in this thread. The one you had to be asked twice before you would actually answer. My communicating is just fine, maybe it's something on your end.

AUTaxMan
09-17-2012, 12:38 PM
It's been pretty clear what question I was talking about. The only question you've been asked in this thread. The one you had to be asked twice before you would actually answer. My communicating is just fine, maybe it's something on your end.

Clear to you maybe. Not to me. I didn't initially answer the question because i thought my reading of the excerpt was immaterial to the issue. I did not offer an opinion on the article.

Wickabee
09-17-2012, 12:47 PM
Clear to you maybe. Not to me. I didn't initially answer the question because i thought my reading of the excerpt was immaterial to the issue. I did not offer an opinion on the article.

I don't think it was immaterial at all. If you hadn't read it, I'd have to ask you the same question you asked him. Had you answered the question when first asked, we could have avoided this whole useless line of discussion. The way I see it, you either don't answer questions, or don't read entire posts.