Bob Woodward's Book and Anonymous Op Ed


More leftwing media lies or something? Or is there a problem?

Let’s not forget where Woodward has been in recent history:


I would not be surprised to find out that the anonymous NYT op-ed was engineered and timed to boost interest in Woodward’s rag.


Another bunch of claims from an “anonymous source” who is a “really significant Trump insider” that just happens to be saying the same things the media has been trying to sell in their verified fake news pieces since Trump won.

The idea that Woodward is vestige of credibility among the sea of Leftist “reporters” is laughable, they have failed to establish a narrative so far with their “Anonymous sources” so they reach down into the barrel and pull out Woodward because he has been selling “Anonymous sources” for decades.

The fact that he has written some negative stuff about Obama does not lend Woodward any credibility, the Left always spew a little negative about their own (timed strategically to not be anywhere near an election) so they can point to these “criticisms” as “evidence” that they are unbiased.

How many threads have we seen started over the years by exited posters wondering “Is ______ Starting to get it!” with some generic Leftist reporters name in the blank and a critical article or monologue directed at a Leftist leader?

Enough where I tired of posting the date of the next election in those threads to show how there was plenty of time to suck up fully by the next election.

We have genuine criminals in our government and many that have served terms out in our government who have never been held accountable for the crimes they committed against the United States, any legitimate investigative reporter would be using their credibility to shine on a light on those facts; yet the likes of Woodward the fossil is writing pieces on the “resistance movement” in Trumps circle that is being run by cowards who are afraid to identify themselves?

Woodward has not brought credibility to the fake news, Woodward has only proved that he is as much a part of the fake news as the rest of them.


Wasn’t it Woodward who once claimed to have “interviewed” an ex-CIA chief in the hospital when said ex-CIA chief was in a coma near death?


The Woodward reporting is disturbing, but it’s not like we need him to tell us that Trump is a grotesquely immoral individual with a bottomless disregard for basic republican values. The proof of this is on his Twitter account, interviews, and public statements.


I know that you like to just regurgitate leftist slurs but maybe, just maybe, you could, for once, answer a simple question:

What are, in your opinion, “basic republican values”?

I assume with the lower case " r " on republican, that you are referring to our republican form of government, not the Republican Party. Correct me if I am wrong on this point.


The little “r” is intentional.

Basic republican values (in the American tradition of republicanism, a great deal of which was borrowed from Cicero) include rule of law, a free press, limited government, personal integrity, humility and restraint with respect to granted powers. I could go on.

I responded to you for the sake of clarity, as I think that’s a fair request. However, I have no interest in getting in some argumentative exchange with you, given that I don’t believe you’re operating in good faith, and I have no interest in wasting my time.


Has there been a more breathtaking change of values in modern American political history than the Republican party and Evangelicals’ sudden embrace of “character doesn’t count”? There’s nothing “conservative” about these views: this is radicalism. If someone had stood up in a legislature for the original Thirteen Colonies and declared the political position that “character doesn’t count,” that person would have been jeered out of court.


Well J, we finally agree on something.


If your basement is full of rabid, nasty, vicious raccoons, you don’t give a tinker’s dam if the exterminator is rude, crude, smelly, has bad hair or is an egomaniac. You merely want to get rid of the raccoons!


When a person supports Hillary Clinton for president, they don’t have any grounds to throw stink bombs at anyone. Depending upon what you think about metal illness, Hillary could be rated as the worst presidential candidate ever nominated by a major United States political party. Her main competitors for the bottom spot are Horace Greely, nominated by the Liberal Republicans and Democratic Parties in 1872 and James G. Blaine who got the Republican nod in 1884.

Poor Horace was mentally fragile. He ended up in a mental institution soon after the November election and died before the month was out.

Blaine took money from the railroad industry and was caught red handed twice. One of Blaine’s supporters hurt his cause when he referred to Irish – Catholic votes as rooted in “rum, Romanism and rebellion.” That comment may have cost Blaine the State of New York and the 1884 presidential election. At least Blaine himself never called them “deplorable.”

Hillary and Bill have taken money from people and governments all over the world including Russia and oil producing Arab states. They are in the political influence for hire business and have been at it for a long time.

If you want to talk about “monsters,” Bill and Hillary are about as monstrous from the ethical and legal point of view as you can get.


I could understand you as a person of integrity and honesty if your argument were: “I agree that Trump is immoral and corrupt, and that his administration should be opposed, but the only other realistic option (Hillary) is much worse. Hence, I voted for the least bad option”

I would disagree with you on the least bad option count, but I would still think your position was plausible and reasonable.

Personally, I agree that Hillary is immoral and corrupt, and that her administration should have been opposed, but the only other realistic option (Trump) was much worse. Hence, I voted for the least bad option.

The problem with your position is that you’re actually an enthusiastic supporter of a corrupt and immoral president.


Just HOW do you believe that President Trump was/is “much worse” than Hillary? He’s working for free, owes NOTHING to donors and hasn’t done a single thing as President that’s in the least corrupt or illegal (or even MORALLY wrong). He has the absolute, Constitutional authority to fire anyone in his administration that he wishes for any reason he deems to be adequate…or for no reason whatsoever. He has scrupulously followed the law in his governance and hasn’t done a single thing in the least “corrupt.” NOTHING in the Constitution requires a President to impoverish himself in order to serve so that idiotic “emoluments” meme is bogus as well. President Washington continued to farm after he was elected twice and continued to market and sell his produce both domestically and overseas. There isn’t an IOTA of evidence that he or his campaign staff “colluded” with Russia in order to win the election, though there’s a MOUNTAIN of evidence that Hillary did…and lost anyway. I’ll admit that she received more of the popular vote than he did, but there’s lots of evidence that many of her votes were bogus–cast by the names on gravestones or by those who are not American citizens–which doesn’t matter because this is a REPUBLIC and not a DEMOCRACY and the President is elected by the ELECTORAL COLLEGE…not by popular vote.


Dave, Alinskyites will NEVER argue issues or facts since they know they will lose. The politics of personal destruction is all they have in their playbook. He ain’t gonna change.


I’m sure you’re right, but I can’t resist rubbing his nose in the truth.


Just HOW do you believe that President Trump was/is “much worse” than Hillary?

It’s my opinion that the Right has always overestimated Hillary. Not with respect to her lust for power (which is inexhaustible), but in her ability and desire to use that power. The truth is that Hillary has always worked very hard to gain power, but then proved utterly feckless in the use of it. Her career is exemplified by ambition for power, and laziness in the execution of that power.

My estimation was at the time, and still is, that Hillary would have been a largely toothless one-term president, controlled by a Republican congress, content with the possession of power, but lacking the political skill and desire to use it for more than petty corruption. She would have been a deeply unpopular president, paralyzed by the inevitable scandals, and the investigation into those scandals by congressional Republicans.

For all her corruption, she wouldn’t have come close to the erosion of basic values and decency that we’ve seen from Trump. The best case scenario in 2016, once it came down to Hillary and Trump, was a Hillary victory with Republicans holding onto Congress for the next four years.


BS, of course. That doesn’t answer my question. What “erosion of basic values and decency” have we “seen from [President] Trump?” Do you refer to the vicious, criminality of the left that has been INSPIRED by a Trump Presidency? Please explain how that’s HIS fault? We get it that the left hates him with a purple passion. I would expect nothing less from the idiots who think Hillary would have been a “better choice,” who have made their very LIVINGS voting for Democrats who’ll give them more “free stuff.”


I remember telling a few Republican friends during the Obama years that, if they thought Obama was bad, whatever follows him is going to be worse. Of course, I didn’t think it would be anything as bad as this. Any republican with a shred of conscience is looking at this in slack-jawed horror.

But the same holds true for the next administration, I’m afraid. If you think Trump is bad, whatever Democratic reaction follows him is going to be pretty scary. We’re already seeing glimpses of it with the Berniecrat movement. This erosion of values didn’t start with Trump, but wow…he’s really ran the ball further into the immoral scumbag territory than anyone before him. It’s hard to see how American politics recovers from this. Open disdain for inconveniences like Rule of Law is great when you’re in power. But pretty soon you’re going to remember how badly it sucks when you’re not.


Yet another FACT FREE attack.


The facts are already known to all. What’s in dispute is interpretation of those facts. Disputing interpretation of facts with you is pointless; we’re not going to change each others minds. You’ve already gone on record saying you find Trump’s disdain for rule of law “refreshing” because of how open he is about it. Our values are too different for us to find any common ground.