• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Panetta unloads on White House for pulling US forces out of Iraq

cpwill said:
:) I find it really entertaining how you felt the need to make sure you didn't cite the rest of the post, which rather drove home the point. :)
Click to expand...
The remainder of your post also contained errors, so you should feel lucky that I only went with the fringe propaganda portion ;)
 
Fearandloathing said:
Trolling?

You have something to back that up with besides a cheap drive by post.

Didn't think so.
Click to expand...

These buggars deny the CIA atrocities in Latin America every time it comes up. Funny thing is the amount of documentation behind it.
 
Grant said:
[...] If a CIA Station Chief can overthrow the Ukraine then a dozen or so could probably overthrow the entire Middle East.
Click to expand...
They've probably already hit most of the high points in that region, with Iran and Iraq at the top of the list.

"In February 1960, the CIA created an unrelated plan to oust [Prime Minister] Qasim by giving him a poisoned handkerchief, although it may have been aborted.[24]

Army officers with ties to the Ba'ath Party overthrew Qasim in the Ramadan Revolution coup of 1963. Ba'athist leaders were appointed to the cabinet and Abdul Salam Arif became president. The governments of the United States and United Kingdom were complicit in the coup.[25]"

Saddam Hussein [Rise to Power] - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
 
Montecresto said:
These buggars deny the CIA atrocities in Latin America every time it comes up. Funny thing is the amount of documentation behind it.
Click to expand...
Studied ignorance is the only explanation I can think of, which indicates that in the proper environment propaganda works, and works well. The less desirable conclusion is that the right still supports such behavior and are simply intentionally obtuse on certain facts of history that paint them as those they claim to ideologically oppose (fascists/authoritarians).
 
Montecresto said:
There's a fair share of republicans that would like to put that genie back in the bottle too. And I forgot, everything's Obama's fault.
Click to expand...

As who I believe was a great President Harry Truman once said and I paraphrase "The buck stops here".
 
Karl said:
The remainder of your post also contained errors, so you should feel lucky that I only went with the fringe propaganda portion ;)
Click to expand...

:) That's interesting. Given that I included a copy-paste with a linked source demonstrating the portion you did cite, could you cite and point out which parts were errors? :)
 
I love these insider books about presidents because it's interesting to read about what goes on behind the doors of the most powerful office in the world. I'm going to read Panetta's book and as far as I'm concerned he has a lot of credibility. However I do think he should have waited until president Obama was out of office before he released the book. I don't think presidents should have to look over their shoulder to see which insider is outing their private conversations and second guessing them while they're trying to run the country, or in Obama's case, while he's trying to tee off.
 
Anna Noblesse said:
I love these insider books about presidents because it's interesting to read about what goes on behind the doors of the most powerful office in the world. I'm going to read Panetta's book and as far as I'm concerned he has a lot of credibility. However I do think he should have waited until president Obama was out of office before he released the book. I don't think presidents should have to look over their shoulder to see which insider is outing their private conversations and second guessing them while they're trying to run the country, or in Obama's case, while he's trying to tee off.
Click to expand...

This is nothing more then politics and money.
 
Fearandloathing said:
It was mass insanity as I recall. As old Hans Bliz was begging for another week, he was being decried as a 'terrorist sympathizer' in the media. There is no escaping the fact the US was in a frenzy over invading; while politicians of the day heralded themselves as heroes, Canada went about re-electing the most corrupt Prime Minister in the modern era because "he kept us out of Iraq. If there was anyone opposed at the time, they were few, I think even Obama voted "present".

But what good does that do now? Since then a lot of water has gone over the dam; the initial occupation was a sham, they virtually destroyed the country. Obama then fed off over-glowing reports about stability and pulled out, resulting in the current situation. None of what happened to the changing of the guard is relevant since they are gone. Obama is in charge, he is the only one who can change anything, he is the Omega man, the only guy who can now fix what has been wrought. That's where is the focus. as was my point, harping on "they did it too" only feeds the fact nothing changes.

and nothing will until Americans take an honest look at where they are instead of the ongoing mid game of blaming each other about how you got there.
Click to expand...

If we're ever to learn a lesson from our policy mistakes, we must acknowledge them, and stop apologizing for them.

PBS commentator Bill Moyers had made similar points throughout the run up to the Iraq War, and prior to a national press conference on the Iraq War[28] Moyers correctly predicted "at least a dozen times during this press conference he [the President] will invoke 9/11 and Al Qaeda to justify a preemptive attack on a country that has not attacked America. But the White House press corps will ask no hard questions tonight about those claims."[68][69] Moyers later also denounced the complicity of the press in the administration's campaign for the war, saying that the media "surrendered its independence and skepticism to join with [the U.S.] government in marching to war," and that the administration "needed a compliant press, to pass on their propaganda as news and cheer them on.
 
Karl said:
Studied ignorance is the only explanation I can think of, which indicates that in the proper environment propaganda works, and works well. The less desirable conclusion is that the right still supports such behavior and are simply intentionally obtuse on certain facts of history that paint them as those they claim to ideologically oppose (fascists/authoritarians).
Click to expand...

I would agree with you on that completely.
 
Navy Pride said:
As who I believe was a great President Harry Truman once said and I paraphrase "The buck stops here".
Click to expand...

Should have applied that to Bush when he blamed the intel community for his lies about Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
 
Anna Noblesse said:
I love these insider books about presidents because it's interesting to read about what goes on behind the doors of the most powerful office in the world. I'm going to read Panetta's book and as far as I'm concerned he has a lot of credibility. However I do think he should have waited until president Obama was out of office before he released the book. I don't think presidents should have to look over their shoulder to see which insider is outing their private conversations and second guessing them while they're trying to run the country, or in Obama's case, while he's trying to tee off.
Click to expand...
Panetta should have resigned at the time he was unhappy with Obama's leadership and gone public as to why. Now, despite the interesting things he has to say during his interviews, it still comes off as looking a bit shoddy.
 
Anna Noblesse said:
I love these insider books about presidents because it's interesting to read about what goes on behind the doors of the most powerful office in the world. I'm going to read Panetta's book and as far as I'm concerned he has a lot of credibility. However I do think he should have waited until president Obama was out of office before he released the book. I don't think presidents should have to look over their shoulder to see which insider is outing their private conversations and second guessing them while they're trying to run the country, or in Obama's case, while he's trying to tee off.
Click to expand...

The left sure as hell did not wait to slam President Bush before he got out of office...It goes with the territory Anna...By the way welcome to DP...Looking forward to your input......:cheers:
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
Panetta should have resigned at the time he was unhappy with Obama's leadership and gone public as to why. Now, despite the interesting things he has to say during his interviews, it still comes off as looking a bit shoddy.
Click to expand...

That's precisely what I think he should have done.
 
Navy Pride said:
The left sure as hell did not wait to slam Presideent Bush before he got out of office...It goes with the territory Anna...By the way welcome to DP...Looking for your input......:cheers:
Click to expand...

Panetta is "the left"
 
Montecresto said:
Should have applied that to Bush when he blamed the intel community for his lies about Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
Click to expand...

I believe that was the British Intelligence agency my left wing friend and even your hero Hillary and 85 senators believed it.
 
Navy Pride said:
No he isn't
Click to expand...
Panetta and Hillary, both Democrats and friends, have each dumped on the hapless Barrack Obama. Could Leon be in line for a job as Hillary's campaign manager? Or a place in her government?
 
Navy Pride said:
I believe that was the British Intelligence agency my left wing friend and even your hero Hillary and 85 senators believed it.
Click to expand...

I detest Hillary Clinton, and will vote for Mickey Mouse before her. And yes, I'm aware of the senate complacency on Bush's lies about Iraq though.

PBS commentator Bill Moyers had made similar points throughout the run up to the Iraq War, and prior to a national press conference on the Iraq War[28] Moyers correctly predicted "at least a dozen times during this press conference he [the President] will invoke 9/11 and Al Qaeda to justify a preemptive attack on a country that has not attacked America. But the White House press corps will ask no hard questions tonight about those claims."[68][69] Moyers later also denounced the complicity of the press in the administration's campaign for the war, saying that the media "surrendered its independence and skepticism to join with [the U.S.] government in marching to war," and that the administration "needed a compliant press, to pass on their propaganda as news and cheer them on."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War
 
Grant said:
Panetta and Hillary, both Democrats and friends, have each dumped on the hapless Barrack Obama. Could Leon be in line for a job as Hillary's campaign manager? Or a place in her government?
Click to expand...

Interesting point I still think he is a square shooter though.
 
Montecresto said:
I detest Hillary Clinton, and will vote for Mickey Mouse before her. And yes, I'm aware of the senate complacency on Bush's lies about Iraq though.

PBS commentator Bill Moyers had made similar points throughout the run up to the Iraq War, and prior to a national press conference on the Iraq War[28] Moyers correctly predicted "at least a dozen times during this press conference he [the President] will invoke 9/11 and Al Qaeda to justify a preemptive attack on a country that has not attacked America. But the White House press corps will ask no hard questions tonight about those claims."[68][69] Moyers later also denounced the complicity of the press in the administration's campaign for the war, saying that the media "surrendered its independence and skepticism to join with [the U.S.] government in marching to war," and that the administration "needed a compliant press, to pass on their propaganda as news and cheer them on."
Click to expand...

So do you feel the same way about the other 85 senators? Also if Hillary runs there is no doubt in my military mind that you will fall in line like the rest of the lemmings on the left and vote for her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom