"...there are some striking problems with Panetta’s complaints about Obama."

[babylonsister]

Posted with permission. IMO, he's just trying to cash in. How sad.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/panetta-wows-republicans-shots-obama

Panetta wows Republicans with shots at Obama
10/07/14 10:49 AM
By Steve Benen


There’s ample precedent for members of a president’s team leaving office, writing a book, and having unkind words for their former boss. And as a simple matter of capitalism, it stands to reason that these books have to be controversial to make money – books in which former officials spend 300 pages saying, “The president and I made a bunch of smart and effective decisions,” probably don’t sell well.

But former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has been pushing his luck lately, taking a series of dubious shots at President Obama.

Panetta is hardly the first former cabinet official to publish a self-congratulatory, self-serving book, and if the former Pentagon chief hoped to generate interest in his memoir, he’s succeeded – Republicans can’t stop talking about how much they suddenly love Leon Panetta.

But if we look past the personalities and the partisans, and focus solely on the policy, there are some striking problems with Panetta’s complaints about Obama. For example, he told USA Today this week, “For the first four years, and the time I spent there, I thought {the president} was a strong leader on security issues…. But these last two years I think he kind of lost his way.”

Kevin Drum’s reaction was spot-on.

{Panetta’s} basic worldview is simple: as long as Obama is launching lots of drone attacks and surging lots of troops and bombing plenty of Middle Eastern countries – then he’s a “strong leader on security issues.” But when Obama starts to think that maybe reflexive military action hasn’t acquitted itself too well over the past few years – in that case he’s “kind of lost his way.”

That’s the default view of practically everyone in Washington: Using military force shows strong leadership. Declining to use military force shows weakness. But most folks inside the Beltway don’t even seem to realize they feel this way. It’s just part of the air they breathe…. This is what Obama is up against.

And while every syllable of this is true, the scope of Panetta’s odd complaints goes further.

The former Defense Secretary last week wrote a piece blaming Obama’s withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq for the chaos gripping much of the country. And yet, it was none other than Leon Panetta who defended Obama’s withdrawal policy, repeatedly, before he was trying to boost book sales.

Panetta now says he believes Obama should have pressed Iraqi officials to keep thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely. What would those troops have accomplished that they didn’t already try over the last decade? Panetta hasn’t really said. What was Obama supposed to do about the fact that Iraq wanted American servicemen and women out? Panetta hasn’t really explained that, either. Why did Panetta see a residual force as impossible in 2011, only to believe the opposite now? He hasn’t offered an explanation of this, either.

And yet, Panetta just keeps complaining, not just about Iraq, but about U.S. policy in Syria, too, where the former Pentagon chief apparently believes it’s irrelevant that Obama rid Syria of its chemical-weapons stockpiles – weapons that now can’t fall into the hands of Islamic State militants.

Making matters slightly worse, as part of Panetta’s all-out media blitz, he complained to the New York Times about Obama going to Congress last year before intervention in Syria, and then complained about Obama not going to Congress this year before intervention in Syria.

Who knows, maybe this is a terrific public-relations strategy for a guy on a book tour. If Panetta hoped to generate chatter about his book, the past couple of weeks have been a triumph. If he hoped to get White House critics interested in his memoir, Panetta has done what he set out to do.

But those looking for real insights into a sensible national security policy probably haven’t learned much from Panetta’s p.r. campaign.

[LawDeeDah]

1. Excellent, this line says it all:

That’s the default view of practically everyone in Washington: Using military force shows strong leadership. Declining to use military force shows weakness. But most folks inside the Beltway don’t even seem to realize they feel this way. It’s just part of the air they breathe…. This is what Obama is up against.

If Obama doesn't play the aggressive war game with made up bullshit lies and excuses for them, such as his predessesors have then how will the next mass murdering fuck in the line up for Pres gonna look like compared? A mass murdering lying fuck?

This is what is worrying the establishment.

[liberalmike27]

21. Panetta

Has become just another in a long line of Clinton associates that seem to either become open Republicans, or show open disdain for actual Democratic policies, or Democrats specifically.

[Cha]

42. "This is what is worrying the establishment." Bingo, as we say, LawDeeDah

[Frustratedlady]

2. And, Hillary offered him which job?

Panetta should retire from public service. He also should have waited until Obama was out of office before slamming him, let alone wait until after the election.

I've lost what respect I had for him. Sorry, Panetta, but I won't be buying your book.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

10. Totally agree - would go one step further - He's a jerk. nt

[calimary]

17. I'd go with Fucking TURNCOAT.

I won't be bothering with his damn book, either. He's giving aid and comfort to the enemy, FLAT OUT. Both foreign and domestic. ESPECIALLY domestic.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

81. true..even scumbag republicans

Stick together through thick and thin. Never liked the guy..ever..now I know why

[leftyladyfrommo]

14. Me, too.

I wouldn't walk across the street to get that book.

And I have lost all respect for that man. Although, I'm not sure I ever really had any for him. I never paid attention to him at all.

[DonCoquixote]

27. and Hillary joined in the chorus

After all, she is saying she would have attacked Syria, which is saying "get me into office 2016 and I WILL go to war in Syria!"

[TwilightGardener]

3. Panetta's a politician, a hack, and Hillary's leg-breaking goon. Nothing more.

[Cha]

51. Colorful description, TwilightGardener!

[Jackpine Radical]

4. One of my middle-sized problems with Obama

was giving the position to Panetta in the first place.

[rhett o rick]

6. I don't think he had a choice. I think Pres Obama gets lots of "help" from those with "higher

paygrades." It would certainly explain why he appointed so many strong Conservatives.

[2banon]

59. ^^^^THIS^^^^^ n/t

[bemildred]

82. Right up there with Gore selecting Holy Joe for VP in my view. nt

[Jackpine Radical]

84. Or a number of Obama's other picks--

Rahm, Geithner, Bernanke, Summers, Duncan, Wheeler…

[Rex]

90. BINGO!

Should be shouted from the rooftops.

[BeyondGeography]

5. What's funny is when the anti-Obama hair-on-fire types

invoke Leon Panetta, the prince of fucking Beltway darkness, to support their "critique."

[rhett o rick]

8. Yes, it's a lot of laughs considering that Pres Obama appointed him. nm

[Cha]

24. So? Some people turn out to be A$$holes..

"The former Defense Secretary last week wrote a piece blaming Obama’s withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq for the chaos gripping much of the country. And yet, it was none other than Leon Panetta who defended Obama’s withdrawal policy, repeatedly, before he was trying to boost book sales."

[rhett o rick]

29. Ah yes, Panetta "turned out" to be an asshole. No one could have seen that coming.

But it seems that there is a long line of Obama appointees that "turned out to be assholes" like:Tim Geitner, Lawrence Summers, Ben Bernanke, William M. Daley, Jeff Immelt, Dave Cote, Jeb Bush, Robert Gates, Gen Stanley McChrystal, Jacob Lew, Jeremiah Norton, Gen Petraeus, John Brennen, Chuck Hegal, Michael Taylor, James Comey, James R. Clapper, Robert Mueller, Michele Leonhart (DEA), Lois Lerner (IRS), Arnie Duncan (education) , Rahm Emanuel, Penny Pritzker, Michael Froman as U.S. trade representative, Republican Senator Judd Gregg nominated to be Commerce Secretary, Kenneth Salazar (DINO) Dept of Interior, etc.

If I missed someone, please let me know.

[Cha]

44. That's your opinion.. I'll take Paul Krugman's analysis.. in spite of all the raging on President

Obama about how he's not doing this and he's not doing that to yours or anyone else's expectation, he's managed to secure high marks from Paul Krugman.


The Nobel Prize-winning economist, once one of the president’s most notable critics, on why Obama is a historic success

snip//

"There's a different story on the left, where you now find a significant number of critics decrying Obama as, to quote Cornel West, someone who ''posed as a progressive and turned out to be counterfeit.'' They're outraged that Wall Street hasn't been punished, that income inequality remains so high, that ''neoliberal'' economic policies are still in place. All of this seems to rest on the belief that if only Obama had put his eloquence behind a radical economic agenda, he could somehow have gotten that agenda past all the political barriers that have con- strained even his much more modest efforts. It's hard to take such claims seriously."

More..
zappaman http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025644404

Wtf are you even talking about "Jeb Bush" for?

[Major Hogwash]

49. Just out this month! How timely!

Who, what the fu*k!??

Damn, you are quick!

That's a damn good picture of President Obama.

But damn, girl, that's just my opinion!

[Cha]

50. Your "opinion" is right up

there with Krugman's, imv, Major. You get to know people.. even online.. and you grow to respect their opinion or not.

And, my opinion is.. Hell Yes it's damn good pic of the President's!

[Stellar]

56. I find myself loving all of your posts.

Thanks for sharing.

[liberal from boston]

57. President Obama

I always look forward to Cha's posts!!!!

[Stellar]

72. Well, that will give me something to look forward to...

[Cha]

69. Mahalo, Stellar!

[rhett o rick]

55. You were rationalizing Pres Obama's appointment of Panetta by saying he"turned out to be an a$$hole"

as if there was no way Pres Obama could have seen that coming. I think the Pres knew full well what he was getting into when he appointed Panetta. I was trying to point out that the Pres has appointed a number of individuals that "turned out to be a$$holes" and I provided a list. If you disagree, point out where I am wrong.

As far as Jeb Bush, maybe you have forgotten that Pres Obama embraced and consulted Jeb Bush for guidance on education reform to the dismay of teachers across the land. Did I include Arnie Duncan in the list that surprised us all by "turning out to be an a$$hole"?

[TwilightGardener]

68. Depends on your criteria for assholery. Some on your list are currently in their jobs

and serve the President, so they're there as long as they meet his approval whether you like it or not, and their policies generally don't make them assholes, IMO--not least because they are also Obama's policies, unless you think he's an asshole too. Others have stabbed him in the back (clear asshole behavior), or obviously gave the President some bad advice, or are fuckups or otherwise incompatible with his agenda, or really are personally just assholes. You need to kind of narrow it down, it just seems like a laundry list of people you vaguely disagree with.

[rhett o rick]

71. It's a laundry list of conservatives. Who on the list do you feel "stabbed him in the back?"

Did Gen Clapper, for example? Arnie Duncan? When you appoint conservatives you are going to get conservative behavior. Is that "stabbing him in the back?"

[TwilightGardener]

73. Gates kinda stabbed him in the back with his book--

But considering he's a Repub, though, his disloyalty moment was mild. Nothing like Panetta going on TV to denounce Obama's leadership three weeks before an election and while Obama's trying to deal with world crises. That's just classic asshole.

[merrily]

77. DINOs and Republicans all.

That's Gates (Republican), Panetta (former Republican, now DINO) and Hillary (same), all writing books in which the President who appointed them gets criticized before he leaves office. Funny, a lot of the same people who are calling Panetta a traitor because of the criticism of Obama that appears in his book also support Hillary, despite the criticism of Obama in her book. Must be great to be that, um...."pragmatic."

[rhett o rick]

83. And those that are now willing to throw Panetta and Gates under the bus, will change their tunes,

again, if they should be appointed by H. Clinton in the future.

Interesting how some that are so adamantly anti-Republican will accept them if appointed by a Democrat. And their rationalizations are laughable.

Pragmatism - The excuse for having no principles.

[merrily]

85. Welcome to PPI, the place for pragmatic progressives.

That is what the home page of Will Marshall's Progressive Policy Institute used to say. (I am not sure if that is word for word, but it's close.) I don't know if Tom Tomorrow's cartoons mocking "pragmatic" or practical liberals caused the change iin the website's home page, but it no longer boasts of being the place for pragmatic progressives.


Of course, Marshall was one of two original employees of the Democratic Leadership Council, of which Hillary and Bill were founding members, the organization that changed the Democratic Party and gave us New Democrats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

Marshall signed the 2003 PNAC letter, urging Bush to invade Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Marshall

Hillary urged her fellow Senators to vote for the invasion.

Obama, whose defeat of Hillary in the primary was based in great part upon her support of the Iraq War, appointed her Secretary of State and Panetta, Bush's Secretary of Defense. And, for the past two years, they've been trying to anoint Hillary as the party's nominee for President.

Our choices seem to be that kind of "pragmatism" or helping Republicans win. If that doesn't tell us we need both principles and a better system, I don't know what does.

Things are not wrong when Republicans are in charge and totally defensible, even admirable, when Democrats are in charge .

[rhett o rick]

86. It doesn't seem to make sense unless you consider that the President isn't in charge.

There may be a group that outranks the President. Presidents come and go and the group stays the same. The group probably includes those people that seem to always be included whether it's Bush or Obama as president. They will be present if either H. Clinton or Jeb gets to be president. This group has economic, foreign policy, and national security programs in place that seem to be untouchable by the presidents.

[merrily]

87. I believe the official name of that group is Persuasive Large Campaign Donors.

[Johonny]

7. The dude reiterated a stance that he thinks the president can torture people

and that torture does yield actionable data.

In the book, Panetta straddles both sides of the national debate about waterboarding and other interrogation tactics that meet international definitions of torture. He agrees with Obama’s decision to end some of the most brutal practices but argues that they yielded valuable intelligence.

There are countless Government reports that say he is wrong. Frankly Panetta did a lot the past few days to discredit himself. I mean seriously TORTURE? Fuck this guy.

[rhett o rick]

9. The trouble is that IMO Panetta is part of the "committee", group, or cabal that has a lot of

influence in running the government. Just sayin'

[logosoco]

11. I have to admit, as soon as I heard he had a book I stopped reading the story. Sorry Leon! nt

[JoePhilly]

12. The media loves to push complaints about Obama from left and right ...

... while never pushing those opposing forces towards a debate with each other.

If you are attacking Obama, you can jump back and forth arguing from the left and the right, and the media will never notice the position switching.

Thus Obama is weak, and a war monger.

[JayhawkSD]

13. And the biggest problem is Panetta himself.

He was an idiot when he was in office and, unsurprisingly, he is still an idiot.

[leftyladyfrommo]

15. He doesn't seem too sharp.

I don't understand how these guys get to such high offices. Money, money, money.

[sabrina 1]

16. If Obama had put real Democrats in his cabinet, not Republicans like Gates, or spokespersons for the

PNAC and MIC, like Panetta, or torture supporters like Brennan, or Bush loyalists like those still running the useless NSA, he might not have had to worry about these kinds of betrayals.

In Jan 2009 he had a mandate from the people who had just thrown out those who created the failed policies Panetta is now espousing. That was the time to find some smart, strong Democrats that he could trust to put in place policies that would have exposed the criminal policies of those Panetta seems to be speaking for.

I support this President's policies regarding Syria, perhaps he learned after Libya that listening to these warmongers was a huge mistake.

Someone has to start calling what they did CRIMES against HUMANITY so it gets fixed in people's minds, and then, when they hear them speak they will give them all the credibility they deserve.

But, regarding all these betrayals, one after the other, of those the President thought he could trust, all I have to say is 'what was he thinking'?

[dreamnightwind]

18. Panetta is not really a Democrat IMO

He's one of those who is "in the club" that we aren't in. He used to call himself a Republican, now calls himself a Democrat. It means little in his case as far as I can tell, he's a "centrist" corporatist militarist who serves empire rather than humans. He used to be my congressman, didn't like him then either.

In this book he appears to be attacking Obama from the right side of the spectrum, not surprising to me. I often criticize Obama from the left, doesn't mean I agree with criticism of him from the right, quite the opposite, Panetta and his ilk can kiss my ass.

[AtomicKitten]

19. He must be one of those Clinton Democrats.

like Alison Grimes - rightwing, racist, and backstabbing.

[LawDeeDah]

70. one of those Turd Wayers that would change a baby's diaper on a restaurant table?

heh

[senseandsensibility]

20. I'm not a Obamabot by any means, but

one of the last person's opinion I care about in regards to the President or anyone else is Panetta's.

[whereisjustice]

22. what the fuck - we've got another war, wages continue to stagnate and it's looking

likely that another crash is just around the corner. We've got police brutality, NSA spying on us and an AWOL congress fattening themselves on millions of corporate dollars. Federal science funding is at all time low, our education system torturing our kids and health care cost continue to climb.

And we've still got the oligarchs who fuck us over every day sniping at each other. Maybe Panetta can star in his own reality TV show with the real wives of Orlando. Jesus, what more does he want?

[Cha]

23. Good ol Steve Benen comes along and explains things to Leon Panetta.. thanks

babylonsistah~

[Number23]

25. Panetta may just be cashing in but I agree with his complaints about the President's policy in Syria

I'm glad that he convinced Syria to get rid of its chemical weapons but I think more should have been done to topple Assad and mitigate ISIS

[Skeowes28]

30. Y

He could have done more but it would have been the USA going in and taking out Assad and being. Responsible for anothe nation building project while the so called Allies ie turkey sit on there corrupt assess

[Skeowes28]

31. Y

He could have done more but it would have been the USA going in and taking out Assad and being. Responsible for anothe nation building project while the so called Allies ie turkey sit on there corrupt assess

[TwilightGardener]

37. Replace Assad with WHO? Topple any awful dictator you want, but then you own

the results, and all the pacification and nation building afterward. Or not, and it's a failed state. See: Maliki, Karzai, Hussein, Gaddafi... It's very possible, anyway, that once Assad fell ISIS would have tried to seize control of the rest of Syria. How would that have been better?

[Number23]

39. Replacing Assad is not the same as getting rid of him.

The people of Syria have begged the world to help get rid of him and the world should have answered. It may have been a failed state and may have stayed that way for a while, but getting rid of Assad was and is the right thing to do.

And ISIS has control over a lot more than Syria right now (see assorted dams, oil fields etc.) because of inaction against them a year ago.

[TwilightGardener]

40. How on God's green earth would Obama have been able to attack ISIS in Syria

a year ago when he couldn't even get support to attack Assad's army because of chem weapons use? Remember people screaming "no!" and burning up Congress's phone lines last September? Nobody wanted us to attack or overthrow Assad, except various rebels and other Arab countries. ISIS hadn't moved into Iraq yet, a year ago, it wasn't the same threat that it became last winter and this spring. Someone/some state or group (Turkey, Qatar, SA) injected it with huge sums of money and support just in the last year. But even with a crystal ball, Obama wouldn't have gotten support for a pre-emptive attack inside Russia-protected Syria sooner than it actually happened. People would have been "WTF?" Events simply had to unfold. We did give Iraq/Maliki more missiles to fight ISIS when they took over Fallujah last winter, but Iraq just never got its act together, politically or militarily, and got overrun in its Sunni strongholds.

[Number23]

43. Yes, I do remember. There were alot of people on DU screaming to the hills about how helping the

rebels and trying to get rid of Assad was a mistake along with a lot of other people. I thought they were all wrong. Lots of other people do too. Jimmy Carter is one of them. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/jimmy-carter-barack-obama-isil-111692.html

So, I know that Obama did not attack Assad because that was the will of the majority of Americans at the time. But I disagreed with them and I disagreed with the president's policy on this. We should have done a lot more than was done.

[TwilightGardener]

45. Look at what we're up against in Syria right now--the rebel groups aren't reliable,

some of them are Al Qaeda, Assad won't fight ISIS but attacks rebel groups, Russia and Iran prop Assad up, we're lucky Assad hasn't used anti-aircraft systems on our planes, Turkey won't help, we have no base for operations in Syria, no reliable ground partners, our planes have to come from far away. The only reason we're flying in Syria now is to attack ISIS's home turf and lessen their capabilities. Doing anything else (taking out Assad) opens up an entire new can of worms that we aren't prepared for right now--plus having to deal with the fallout from Russia and Iran. For everything you think is a good idea, you have to then think: now what? Who owns this situation? Who is going to help us? What will be the outcome--better, or worse? I think Obama's caution was very warranted, and still is.

[Number23]

65. I know. You're right. The rebels aren't reliable. And Turkey's insistence on sitting in the sideline

will likely lead to yet ANOTHER civil war in the region as so many Kurds and others are demanding that the government do something.

And I don't think that there is much that the overbloated US military ISN'T prepared for. We have a military that has more money and resources than the next ten militaries combined. I firmly support efforts to use that massively overfed military might to rid the world of dictators and despots and Assad is at the top of my list.

[Dont call me Shirley]

26. What did anyone expect, he's a republican!?

[oldandhappy]

28. FYI to hosts bringing him on -- I click off.

[raindaddy]

32. A bunch of egos playing 5th dimensional chess no doubt...

and they're all getting rich playing it! These people don't represent you! They represent Wall Street, the military contractors, global corporations that have no vested interest in this country.

Who cares whether Panetta defended Obama's withdrawal policy and then reversed himself? How many times has Obama done the same thing? He campaigned as a populist Democrat, remember?

At the end of the day we're still a country that sold out it's middle class work force, sold out it's students, sold out the environment, ignored our civil liberties and can't seem to go more than a year without expecting us to fund yet another war. And until there's any indication that either Leon Panetta or Barack Obama has any solutions, or even cares about the "real problems" we're facing who cares if they're playing political one-upmanship?

[rpannier]

33. I wish to thank Panetta for proving me right

It was a mistake to give this man any cabinet post
It's a mistake to make this man a crossing guard

Panetta is a self-serving egomaniac, trying to keep himself relevant
By cozying up to the DC-speak groups with his criticisms, he assures himself of another 15 minutes of undeserved fame
God, I hated him before and I still do
I'm just sorry that he is listened to.
But I guess the dumber your whines are, the more you get on TV

[Cha]

34. "But I guess the dumber your whines are, the more you get on TV" We know that's true, rpannier

[Major Hogwash]

47. Correct me if I am wrong, but . . .

Wasn't it Leon Panetta that defended President Obama's policy concerning the CIA for 2 years when he led the CIA from 2009 to 2011?
And isn't this the same Leon Panetta that defended President Obama's strategy concerning Iraq during the 2 years that he led the Pentagon from 2011 to 2013?

So, what does this all add up to?
Well, what I think it means in the end, is that those halcyon days of Leon Panetta being thought of as a voice of reason for any position on any issue on anything are long gone.

And I'll tell you why.

First off, I don't believe that any leader of the MIC should be trusted enough to quote.
I'd rather quote Popeye, the Sailor Man, than the Secretary of Defense.

And secondly, I don't believe ANYTHING a former Director of the CIA says, period, enumo!!!
Not even when they are under oath, while giving testimony at a televised public hearing before a Congressional committee.
Because CIA Directors probably take an oath when they are sworn in to never reveal to the public anything that they would consider a threat to the CIA.

Yet, at the same time, it is the Directors of the CIA who are the ones who determine what information would constitute a threat to the CIA.
So in actuality, Directors of the CIA never really reveal anything to the public, unless the information has somehow already become public knowledge some other way.

Like when Robert D. Novak exposed Valerie Plame as an officer of the CIA in 2003.

I guess the underlying reason I don't believe ANYTHING a former Director of the CIA says is because George H.W. Bush is a former Director of the CIA.
And later on, he started the Persian Gulf War in 1990.

And then there's George Tenet, another former Director of the CIA.
And he helped Dubya Bush start the Iraq War in 2003.

Not to mention Casey, Webster, or Gates, all of whom are also former Directors of the CIA.
And they started a lot of tiny wars that the mainstream media didn't even want to pay lip service to.
Casey and Webster served under Reagan, and Gates served under ol' man Bush.

There's a helluva lot of bullshit that happened over the last 40 years.
Some of it explained, and some of it not.
And yet, most of it is tied to only about a half a dozen guys . . . these 6 guys.

And the truth of the matter is, there is only 1 thing connecting all of them together, and that is the fact that all of them were Directors of the CIA at 1 point in time in their career.

[rpannier]

48. You are correct

I never trusted the sludge and sadly, I think I am right

I don't know who is advising on cabinet appointments, but they're doing a lousy job

[2banon]

64. Astute Observation Major Hogwash. I agree with you too, but I have another theory

I posted it at the bottom of this thread. Essentially, he's campaigning to head the CIA or the Pentagon (or both again) under HRC's admin. That's what I think this is about.

Your point still stands regardless, and I suggest that every word he mutters should be discredited, liken Panetta with Cheney/Rumsfeld et al with public denouncements- and obviously connect HRC's campaign to all of this.

But it could also be true that he's gaming to return to those positions with both parties.

Come to think of it, it seems rather obvious don't it?

[Major Hogwash]

80. That's what I do best! I always try to make a stoot observation whenever I post here!

But, sometimes, I just go for the cheap laugh.

In that way, I'm a lot like Letterman.
No, not really.
I'm nothing like Letterman.

[ecstatic]

35. I think all of this shows that Pres. Obama doesn't play

behind the scenes. And apparently he's firm enough with his team to make them really bitter by the time they're shown the door. That's a good thing, IMO.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

36. KICKED & MUTHAFUCKIN' RECOMMENDED!!

[hedgehog]

41. kick

[pansypoo53219]

46. even panetta can't play 3 dimensional chess.

found the coverage HYPING the negative. because it make them look better. they are playing chekers w/ mccant + miss lindsey.

[MannyGoldstein]

52. Weird. If one hires Clinton-zombies,

they act like Clinton-zombies.

[Ikonoklast]

53. Wonder what cabinet post Hillary offered him?

Leon Panetta, water carrier for hire, Third Way devotee, Hillary bootlicker.

[TwilightGardener]

54. Whatever it is, he'll show up three days a week and fly back to California

for the weekend on the taxpayer's dime, like he did at the Pentagon.

[2banon]

63. Yep. Neo-Con looking for a position in HRC's admin.

[asjr]

58. Panetta knows books that take down

friends and colleagues often sell better than any other kind. Republicans will rush to buy the book. They can then use sections of it to again put Obama in a mud bath for months on end.

[Blue_Tires]

60. It was amusing to see some of the usual DUers

who never cared about a word Panetta said before this week, become instant fans once he started smearing Obama for his book launch...

[2banon]

62. Really? I find that very difficult to believe, and I haven't seen it.

"Some of the Usual DUers" became instant fans, of Panetta?????

I don't think so.

[Blue_Tires]

67. I'd post some links

but they're on my ignore list and no longer show up anyway...

They aren't hard to find if you look

[2banon]

75. As I thought...

just making it up.

if they no longer show up because they've been on your ignore list, yet this a brand new fresh topic...

well, 'nuff said.

[Blue_Tires]

76. You know the Panetta story is four days old, right?

and that the ignore list is instant, right?

See how quick that was? I've just put you on it!

(Don't you dare ever fucking accuse me of making something up...Thank you, and good night)

[2banon]

61. Panetta isn't just cashing in, his ego is worried about his "legacy".

fucking shallow egotistical bastard that he is, his concerns for his policy institute (headquarters in Monterey Ca) is set up as a prestigious "think tank" whose agenda, not unlike the Heritage foundation, Brooking s Institute etc etc exists to support, prop up and issue Foreign policy directives, although strangely it describes itself as a "Public" Policy Institute.

I will never forget his "We Lost Crimea" remarks back in March of this year, (9 min. 40 sec into the vid) to a panel intended to discuss the U.S. and World history of the past 100 years in commemorating the anniversary of WWI.

That very day Russia had moved into Ukraine and "taken" Crimea, and thus became the subject.

Outraged by the stupendous arrogance of that comment, I turned it off.

As all the Panetta Institute lecture series, it was broadcast on my local PBS station and once in a while I'll find myself tuning in just for monitoring purposes. Outraged by the stupendous arrogance of that comment, I turned it off as I could listen to no more. Turning to DU, I found it raging with red baiting trolls.

There is no escaping this level of hubris in the name of "national security" it seems.




IMO, Panetta imagines himself as a very important thinker/policy maker in U.S. affairs here and around the world. And I think he imagines himself serving as a high ranking official once again in a HRC administration. Therefore very critical that he engage in this public degrading of Obama's foreign policy decisions.

We must not allow him to succeed, imo. I think it's vital that we take a very public denouncing of Panetta, likening him to Dick Cheney/Rumsfeld et al. Because that's who and what he is. A fucking NEO-CON.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

66. A reminder to Panetta as to WHY Obama won the last election....

It had nothing to do with being tough.

[SunSeeker]

74. Panetta went on Jon Stewart this week and said we should have stayed in Iraq.

What an unbelievable ass. Jon ripped him with the obvious retort (Bush already promised we'd leave), then Panetta says Obama should have renegotiated. Jon pointed out Malaki didn't want to nor was he politically able to renegade that deal. Panetta had no response to Jon. Panetta should be ashamed of himself.

[2banon]

91. Panetta has no response to a question that SHOULD have been put to him on DAY ONE

repeatedly - but the korporate media isn't interested in the facts. Stewart's interview on that point should have gone viral. I haven't seen it posted yet.

[BellaKos]

78. The essence of the matter

As has been reported, Obama is a long-term thinker. Unlike Panetta et al, he has realized that the US cannot continue its role as world policeman in the 21st century. It's simply not feasible. So, he's trying to develop a template of global coalitions and cooperation that can be used to address the various crises that are inevitable in the years and decades ahead.

People like Panetta who lust for the vicarious thrill of American military intervention are simply old-fashioned in their thinking and cannot yet see that such an approach is no longer sustainable.

[JDPriestly]

79. Thanks to his criticisms of Obama's foreign policy, Panetta has sunk way, way down in my view.

I just don't think much of him.

[DallasNE]

88. How Would American Boots On The Ground Have

Prevented the Iraqi army from dumping their uniforms and deserting their military post.

If America could not have instilled backbone in the Iraqi military over the last 11 years, how would keeping them there longer have made any difference.

Even with ISIS approaching Baghdad the car bombings continue. The real problem with what Panetta is saying is that it is shallow and self-serving. How, for instance, would Panetta have persuaded Maliki to drop there demands that American troops could be tried in Iraqi civil courts for crimes, especially since he was in a position to do something about it and failed.

[Rex]

89. He is just another pundit making his mint on bullshit, never trusted the guy.

Just another charlatan.

[loudsue]

92. Most republicans I know don't read anyway. They're afraid of learning something

that disagrees with Fox news.

[still_one]

93. Here is what bothers me. Panetta or other jerks like him get public air time to spout whatever crap

they want, yet very rarely is there someone not only to counter their accusations, but to appear face to face with them on the same program. The so-called network interviewers rarely do their jobs.

In other words, the public does not have an advocate to truly represent them, which is part of the job of a free press.