• 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

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.

Yes, and no.
 
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:

Doing something unsavory because others before have done it doesn't make it less unsavory. He should have waited until president Obama was out of office. It's going to be tough for future presidents to feel they can speak freely to their advisors, staff members and whomever when they have to worry about a book detailing their every thought and comment coming out while they're still president.
I'm glad he wrote the book and I'm glad he's telling people how president Obama goes about making and not making decisions. I just think he should have waited.

And thanks for the welcome.
 
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."

Rationale for the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia is a left wing rag site owned by a lefty that anyone can post to or change.....Try again my left wing friend.
 
Doing something unsavory because others before have done it doesn't make it less unsavory. He should have waited until president Obama was out of office. It's going to be tough for future presidents to feel they can speak freely to their advisors, staff members and whomever when they have to worry about a book detailing their every thought and comment coming out while they're still president.
I'm glad he wrote the book and I'm glad he's telling people how president Obama goes about making and not making decisions. I just think he should have waited.

And thanks for the welcome.

But how do you know he can be trusted?
 
Doing something unsavory because others before have done it doesn't make it less unsavory. He should have waited until president Obama was out of office. It's going to be tough for future presidents to feel they can speak freely to their advisors, staff members and whomever when they have to worry about a book detailing their every thought and comment coming out while they're still president.
I'm glad he wrote the book and I'm glad he's telling people how president Obama goes about making and not making decisions. I just think he should have waited.

And thanks for the welcome.

It's a date set by the publisher to maximize sales. You do realize this was done to sell books don't you?
 
It's a date set by the publisher to maximize sales. You do realize this was done to sell books don't you?

That and perhaps a little help for Hillary. She's already criticized Obama's Syria policy.
 
Interesting point I still think he is a square shooter though.
That's his reputation but although he has answered many questions they were done in a 'diplomatic' fashion that often bordered on smarmy. He may be a lot more impressive in private than he is in public.
 
That's his reputation but although he has answered many questions they were done in a 'diplomatic' fashion that often bordered on smarmy. He may be a lot more impressive in private than he is in public.

I heard today he was once a Republican...I listened to him on the Factor tonight and was impressed.
 
I heard today he was once a Republican...I listened to him on the Factor tonight and was impressed.
Yes, he was a Republican.

I saw that interview as well and was also impressed for a while but it just didn't stay with me. He said just enough to do damage and then let people like Krauthammer fill in the blanks. If he was sincere he should have resigned with honor earlier and not have come out of the political closet while on a book tour. But perhaps I'm too cynical.
 
It's a date set by the publisher to maximize sales. You do realize this was done to sell books don't you?

Putting out the book while president Obama is still in office just so they can sell more books, get more publicity and make more money only makes it more unsavory.
As far as the date being set by the publishers. The publishers can't publish a book that isn't yet written.
 
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:

Neither did the right! Here's another memoir writer, is he a straight shooter too??

McClellan criticized the Bush Administration in his 2008 memoir, What Happened.[5] In the book, he accused Bush of "self-deception"[6] and of maintaining a "permanent campaign approach" to governing rather than making the best choices.
 
Neither did the right! Here's another memoir writer, is he a straight shooter too??

McClellan criticized the Bush Administration in his 2008 memoir, What Happened.[5] In the book, he accused Bush of "self-deception"[6] and of maintaining a "permanent campaign approach" to governing rather than making the best choices.
A fired spokes weasel is one thing, two respected SecDef's, and a SoS is quite another.

But I understand your need to defend every aspect of negative talk about Obama, hell you can't admit that you wasted two votes for him.
 
Putting out the book while president Obama is still in office just so they can sell more books, get more publicity and make more money only makes it more unsavory.
As far as the date being set by the publishers. The publishers can't publish a book that isn't yet written.
What Panetta said was not really groundbreaking news. He is just confirming what anyone with a basic understanding of these situations knew already.

Because Obama cannot seek reelection Panetta may have cleared his ideas with Obama before the book was even published, giving him a heads-up, as Obama appears indifferent to the goings on around him anyway. And the sales of the book will earn Panetta a good retirement, as is the tradition, and other books will be published supporting Obama, and so on. It will soon be forgotten.

However it does allow Hillary to reintroduce the idea that she, unlike Obama, would be ready for that 3am phone call. Panetta gave her a pass, and made this unlikely surmisal.
Leon Panetta Defends Hillary from ‘Unfair’ Benghazi Criticisms on O’Reilly | Mediaite
 
No part of the USG had anything at all to do with fomenting unrest in Ukraine.



Oh, well there was that 7 minute tape of a senior state department official talking about further aid to the rebels, and there have been documented press reports identifying individuals.

Without that, based simply on the history of the US, the bald faced incompetence of Barrack Obama, it is almost a given. Based these facts, the record of accuracy, I believe them, not someone who has a record of posting blatant bull****. I notice you did not address the main issue, that the US has never been successful at regime change; it's record is steeped in blood from Pinochet, various puppets in Vietnam, the Shah of Iran and on and on.
 
To which atrocities do you refer?


How about this?
The military dictatorship of Chile (Spanish: dictadura militar de Chile) was an authoritarian military government that ruled Chile between 1973 and 1990. The dictatorship was established after the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende was overthrown by a CIA-backed coup d'état on 11 September 1973. The dictatorship was headed by a military junta presided by General Augusto Pinochet. The perceived breakdown of democracy and the economic crisis that took place during Allende's presidency were justifications used by the military to seize power. The dictatorship presented its mission as a "national reconstruction".

The regime was characterized by the systematic suppression of political parties and the persecution of dissidents to an extent that was unprecedented in the history of Chile. Over-all, the regime left over 3,000 dead or missing[1] and forced 200,000 Chileans into exile.[2]

I guess in your America 3000 dead or missing is what "peacekeeping". The rest of the world calls them atrocities.
 
Oh, well there was that 7 minute tape of a senior state department official talking about further aid to the rebels, and there have been documented press reports identifying individuals.

Without that, based simply on the history of the US, the bald faced incompetence of Barrack Obama, it is almost a given. Based these facts, the record of accuracy, I believe them, not someone who has a record of posting blatant bull****. I notice you did not address the main issue, that the US has never been successful at regime change; it's record is steeped in blood from Pinochet, various puppets in Vietnam, the Shah of Iran and on and on.

In fact there were incredible 'regime changes' made during WWII, the Shah was an enlightened leader in Iran compared to what followed, Pinochet saved Chile from a civil war and then reintroduced Democracy to Chile making it the most prosperous country in Latin America. Nicaragua owes its democracy to American aid and Costa Rica was also defended. If you want to be critical of dictators during the Cold War, as you should, there were a great many worse than Augusto Pinochet.
 
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.

There's the point.

As I have said, Bush had his honeymoon with the media too. I suggest if some "hard questions" had been asked of Obama in the early days, there likely would have been a different scenario playing out today. I don't recall any US media, or Republicans either for that matter, saying Obama was jeopardizing ME security by pulling out of Iraq.
 
In fact there were incredible 'regime changes' made during WWII, the Shah was an enlightened leader in Iran compared to what followed, Pinochet saved Chile from a civil war and then reintroduced Democracy to Chile making it the most prosperous country in Latin America. Nicaragua owes its democracy to American aid and Costa Rica was also defended. If you want to be critical of dictators during the Cold War, as you should, there were a great many worse than Augusto Pinochet.


The Shah was a good guy? He killed and tortured thousands! Or were Iranians rioting over his looks?

Pinochet restored "democracy"?

That's outright bull****.
 
How about this?
You are going way off topic here but that clip certainly doesn't give you the full picture of what was going on in Chile at the time. This is a completely one-sided sound bite.

If you talk to Chilean people who were alive at the time they will tell you that Allende, with the help of Fidel Castro, was trying to create a Communist state in Chile. Pinochet prevented a civil war and helped create a prosperous, modern and democratic Chile, with the best economy in Latin America.

Also, to blame the USA first for the troubles in the world is a lazy and tiresome bit of anti Americanism that would be better left to the Cold War propagandists. The fact is that the US has always been an excellent neighbor to Canada, as Canada has been to them, and this silliness is best left to the politically naive who feel a paragraph or two from Wiki is a substitute for actual knowledge.
 
I wonder if any of these types of books actually make money for the publisher.
 
What "facts"??? These are allegations and opinions, written in memoir fashion.

All of a sudden Panetta has credibility? Hilarious. An Obama hit piece from Fake News? What's next? The sun setting in the west?
 
You are going way off topic here but that clip certainly doesn't give you the full picture of what was going on in Chile at the time. This is a completely one-sided sound bite.

If you talk to Chilean people who were alive at the time they will tell you that Allende, with the help of Fidel Castro, was trying to create a Communist state in Chile. Pinochet prevented a civil war and helped create a prosperous, modern and democratic Chile, with the best economy in Latin America.

Also, to blame the USA first for the troubles in the world is a lazy and tiresome bit of anti Americanism that would be better left to the Cold War propagandists. The fact is that the US has always been an excellent neighbor to Canada, as Canada has been to them, and this silliness is best left to the politically naive who feel a paragraph or two from Wiki is a substitute for actual knowledge.



Link?

I am off topic because you continue to pursue it. Since you feel that I am off topic, cannot refute what has been posted, I have no intention of responding further.
 
Doing something unsavory because others before have done it doesn't make it less unsavory. He should have waited until president Obama was out of office. It's going to be tough for future presidents to feel they can speak freely to their advisors, staff members and whomever when they have to worry about a book detailing their every thought and comment coming out while they're still president.
I'm glad he wrote the book and I'm glad he's telling people how president Obama goes about making and not making decisions. I just think he should have waited.

And thanks for the welcome.

Actually people have been writing books about presidents for as long as I can remember...I think it depends on the writers creditability and reputation and as far as Panetta goes he is respected on both sides of the aisle as and honest man and there are few of them in Washington in my opinion.

Your welcome...........enjoy the debate.
 
Liberals spinning in circles. Lol

What's it like living life wrong about everything?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom