Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 98

Thread: Leon Panetta to be nominated CIA Director

  1. #41
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    02-13-09 @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,942

    Re: Leon Panetta to be nominated CIA Director

    So I have been reading various takes on this nomination to head the CIA. A common theme I see is that Panetta will be loyal to Obama first, and not the CIA.

    Didn't we hear the Democrats this past two/three years whining about how executive departments and agencies were too loyal to Bush and, therefore, not loyal enough to the nation?

    Will Obama be held to account on the same standard?

  2. #42
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Leon Panetta to be nominated CIA Director

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    I would rather NOT derail this thread, but what specifically did Bush lie about?
    I didn't say that Bush lied. Find me a quote that I was asserting that was the case. We had this discussion in another thread reverend so I don't know why you're trying to play dumb here.

    Bush took the information he received he decided to act based off the information he did. WHY he did it is impossible to say if you are not George Bush and is open to discussion. Some think he willingly went with bad information, others believe he went off what he thought was the most legitimate or had the most risk vs reliability ration. He then went on to have his administration sell the war based on this information and his administration gave the impression to MANY people that Iraq was directly involved or responsible for 9/11 or working directly with Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden. Whether this was intentional on the part of the Bush Administration or if it was simply the American Public jumping to concussions because words happen to be near each other or if its due to the media's presentation of it is open to discussion.

    This is much like Obama.

    Obama did talk about change, he did talk about a cultural shift in washington. Now, we on the right can definitely say that the way he talked, the inflections and implications he made, was that it was going to be putting in "new blood" and being some huge sweeping change. However, from a technically stand point, he could've easily simply been meaning a "Change" from the republican practices and leadership of the past 8 years. Much like those that "assumed" Bush's administration purposefully tied Iraq to the 9/11 attacks, people are "assuming" they knew exactly what Obama meant by change. Because Obama never specifically came out and said "All my appointed people in government are going to have little to no experience in washington, no ties to other major democrats, and will have years upon years of experience in the job".

    Indeed, the past 3 CIA heads have been listed here already...all 3 with a great deal of intelligence background and all three right leaning. Is not a person that has a more business oriented experience than intelligence, and who is not a republican, technically a "Change". And is there any actual evidence in actual words...not assumptions and paraphases by us posters...to prove that this somehow is adverse to what Obama stated he'd do?

    I'm not saying its a good decision. Read what I've wrote in this thread, I've said it was an extremely poor one. At the same time, NO, Obama is not a "liar". Unless you all can somehow show an EXACT statement by Obama saying he would not do this, or are able to read his mind, you can only talk about your ASSUMPTIONS of what he "meant" to say or imply....and that's exactly what the left has done to Bush's actions to state that he is a liar. They've taken his words and circumstantial actions, decided that they are mind readers, and based on what they've divined from his mind they deem that he purposefully lied.

    I don't believe Bush purposefully lied. I also don't believe that Obama purposefully lied.

    He promised the Democrats a change. And this is, significantly, a change from the past 8 years. To things like "incompetence", as much as inexperience is bad, inexperience does not equal incompetence as incompetence must be shown through ACTION. So while I think Panetta is a bad appointment, I can not say he is an "incompetent" leader of the CIA until he shows himself to be in one case or another.

    The only democrats that should be disenchnated by this selection are those that assumed that the "Change" he was bringing to Washington was a significant change to the entire culture and way in which government and Washington has worked for YEARS...not just the past 8. I don't believe aps was one of those people.

  3. #43
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: Leon Panetta to be nominated CIA Director

    The only democrats that should be disenchnated by this selection are those that assumed that the "Change" he was bringing to Washington was a significant change to the entire culture and way in which government and Washington has worked for YEARS...not just the past 8. I don't believe aps was one of those people.

    He did promise just that. I can quote him, link him, etc where he promised not to have "politics as usual", and "change from washington insiders"..... And it was promised to be more than just change from Bush... He said it about hillary, and HE CHOSE HER!

    To the other points in your post:

    Others made the 8 year argument, I can show you again, that he said that hillary was more of the same inside politics.... he was talking not about a change from Bush. he was and did talk about a change from washington politics.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Seen
    07-18-09 @ 04:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,041

    Re: Leon Panetta to be nominated CIA Director

    Utter garbage nomination.

    Its for political ass kissing reasons only.

    This nation is at WAR and the most self centered airhole in US history picks someone that has never even worked in the CIA to head the CIA.

    al Qaeda's greatest asset is a kinda black kid who talks alot.

  5. #45
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Leon Panetta to be nominated CIA Director

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    He did promise just that. I can quote him, link him, etc where he promised not to have "politics as usual", and "change from washington insiders"..... And it was promised to be more than just change from Bush... He said it about hillary, and HE CHOSE HER!
    Throw up the links. "Politics as usual", again, you're proving my point. You're ASSUMING he means politics as usual throughout the ages and not through the past 8 years. As I said, this guy is a change from "politics as usual" of the past 8 years. Just look at him compared to the other CIA directors during Bush's time.

    Again, show me where he said he'd have no Washington insiders. Really, just show me the entire quote.

    I'm not saying its disingenuous, I'm not saying its a good pick, I'm saying nothing he's done seems like a "lie" based on the same criteria I objectively place against Bush. My logic for why Bush didn't lie doesn't suddenly have to twist so I can say Obama DID lie.

    All I'm saying is to say he "Lied", from the quotes I've seen, needs the person stating it to ASSUME to know what Obama truly "Meant" when he said it and thus use that assumption to claim he lied. I'll happily recant if I see a quote that somehow counters this but so far I've seen nothing but paraphrases at best.

    Others made the 8 year argument, I can show you again, that he said that hillary was more of the same inside politics.... he was talking not about a change from Bush. he was and did talk about a change from washington politics.
    Actually, in some ways especially during the primaries Hillary was closer to Bush than Obama was in her stances. These comments often came up in regards to the Iraq War and the War on Terror in general, in which Hillary was far more hawkish than Obama was.

  6. #46
    Passionate
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    03-07-11 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    15,675

    Re: Leon Panetta to be nominated CIA Director

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    Did your hormonal outrage blind you? I posted:
    "We can’t afford to play the same Washington games with the same Washington players and expect a different result." (April 2008 - Indiana concession speech)

    Did you just overlook that?
    I did! I'm sorry.

  7. #47
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    02-13-09 @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,942

    Re: Leon Panetta to be nominated CIA Director

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    This is much like Obama.
    No. Obama declared that he would re-open, unilaterally, NAFTA. At the same time he was backdooring the Canadaians assuring them that he would do no such thing.

    That is a lie.

    Obama did talk about change, he did talk about a cultural shift in washington.
    No, he explicitly indicated that he would utilize new players.

    He is not.

    And he has not explained why not. We can only conclude then that there was no basis for his earlier declaration and that he didn;t intend on following through on such a declaration.

    Now, we on the right can definitely say that the way he talked, the inflections and implications he made, was that it was going to be putting in "new blood" and being some huge sweeping change.
    No inflections, tone, implications needed. He was explicit.

    "We can’t afford to play the same Washington games with the same Washington players and expect a different result"

    There's nothing to infer from that.

    However, from a technically stand point, he could've easily simply been meaning a "Change" from the republican practices and leadership of the past 8 years.
    Huh?

    Any plain reading of the above quoted, shown here for the third time in this thread, demonstrates precisely what he was talking about.

    Because Obama never specifically came out and said "All my appointed people in government are going to have little to no experience in washington, no ties to other major democrats, and will have years upon years of experience in the job".[/quote]

    he didn't have to because what else did he mean when he was condemning the typical Washington game of politics of usual using the same old players if not that he intended to clean house and appoint new people who had not been a part of the game?

    I don't believe Bush purposefully lied. I also don't believe that Obama purposefully lied.
    You're deluding yourself and I am not sure why...

    He promised the Democrats a change. And this is, significantly, a change from the past 8 years.
    No, he promised us all "change." He claimed the mantle of a post-partisan politician. He was not speaking only to Democrats.

    The only democrats that should be disenchnated by this selection are those that assumed that the "Change" he was bringing to Washington was a significant change to the entire culture and way in which government and Washington has worked for YEARS...not just the past 8. I don't believe aps was one of those people.
    There was no need to assume that's what Obama represented. Obama was very explicit that he represented precisely that. That Washington was corrupt, that the old games of politics being played by long-time inside-the-beltway politicians would no longer exist.

    Come on...we just went through the campaign and people are already revising history. And for what? What are some of you protecting Obama from?

  8. #48
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    02-13-09 @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,942

    Re: Leon Panetta to be nominated CIA Director

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Throw up the links. "Politics as usual", again, you're proving my point.
    I had. TWICE before you posted this response to Rev.

    What happened?

    Did you not read the posts? Did you read them and ignore them?

    You're ASSUMING he means politics as usual throughout the ages and not through the past 8 years. As I said, this guy is a change from "politics as usual" of the past 8 years. Just look at him compared to the other CIA directors during Bush's time.
    There's no assuming. Obama was clear. The same ole, same ole Washington game with the same ole, same ole players would not be tolerated. He was the post-partisan candidate that was going to change how Washington operated. His beef was with the same old crowd of political veterans clogging up the political channels.

    Again, show me where he said he'd have no Washington insiders. Really, just show me the entire quote.

  9. #49
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Post Re: Leon Panetta to be nominated CIA Director

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    No. Obama declared that he would re-open, unilaterally, NAFTA. At the same time he was backdooring the Canadaians assuring them that he would do no such thing.

    That is a lie.
    I'm sorry, this thread is about that? Nice attempt to derail. Not going to bother with it. Want to blather on and on about it go ahead, you're pretty simple to ignore when you're yammering on about pointless things.

    Are you going to simultaneously complain that he didn't appoint someone with exerience, and THEN complain he appointed someone from Washington? This isn't using the same "washington players" that was previously the type used for the CIA, instead he went with a person with a more business and management background. I'm not saying its the right choice, but it is a different direction. And its not a "lie".


    No, he explicitly indicated that he would utilize new players.
    Did he indicated he'd utilize ALL new players? Did he indicated they'd only be new to politics, to democratic politics, or that they'd be new ones other than the republicans we've been seeing? Congrats, assuming, just like the left.

    "We can’t afford to play the same Washington games with the same Washington players and expect a different result"
    Awwww how, CUTE! You made the same statement you're relying on, without a link backing it up, and without any context to it AT ALL, in really really big letters! Isn't that just special.

    Doesn't really prove a damn thing except my point that you're taking a statement and assuming and interpreting it to your will and then stating he's "lieing". Thanks.

    Now, excuse me while I continue to ignore your hyper partisan, hypocritical blather in exchange for reading useful, worth while posts.

  10. #50
    Guru
    Binary_Digit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,539

    Re: Leon Panetta to be nominated CIA Director

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Did he indicated he'd utilize ALL new players? Did he indicated they'd only be new to politics, to democratic politics, or that they'd be new ones other than the republicans we've been seeing? Congrats, assuming, just like the left.
    Thanked for that. And you're right. Obama's critics have assumed a lot from that quote, and as it turns out their assumptions are wrong. Look at the quote in context:

    (quote in red, other important parts in bold)

    Quote Originally Posted by Obama
    After fourteen long months, it’s easy to forget this from time to time – to lose sight of the fierce urgency of this moment. It’s easy to get caught up in the distractions and the silliness and the tit-for-tat that consumes our politics; the bickering that none of us are immune to, and that trivializes the profound issues – two wars, an economy in recession, a planet in peril.

    But that kind of politics is not why we’re here. It’s not why I’m here and it’s not why you’re here.

    We’re here because of the more than one hundred workers in Logansport, Indiana who just found out that their company has decided to move its entire factory to Taiwan.

    We’re here because of the young man I met in Youngsville, North Carolina who almost lost his home because he has three children with cystic fibrosis and couldn’t pay their medical bills; who still doesn’t have health insurance for himself or his wife and lives in fear that a single illness could cost them everything.

    We’re here because there are families all across this country who are sitting around the kitchen table right now trying to figure out how to pay their insurance premiums, and their kids’ tuition, and still make the mortgage so they’re not the next ones in the neighborhood to put a For Sale sign in the front yard; who will lay awake tonight wondering if next week’s paycheck will cover next month’s bills.

    We’re not here to talk about change for change’s sake, but because our families, our communities, and our country desperately need it. We’re here because we can’t afford to keep doing what we’ve been doing for another four years. We can’t afford to play the same Washington games with the same Washington players and expect a different result. Not this time. Not now.

    We already know what we’re getting from the other party’s nominee. John McCain has offered this country a lifetime of service, and we respect that, but what he’s not offering is any meaningful change from the policies of George W. Bush.

    John McCain believes that George Bush’s Iraq policy is a success, so he’s offering four more years of a war with no exit strategy; a war that’s sending our troops on their third tour, and fourth tour, and fifth tour of duty; a war that’s costing us billions of dollars a month and hasn’t made us any safer.

    John McCain said that George Bush’s economic policies have led to “great progress” over the last seven years, and so he’s promising four more years of tax cuts for CEOs and corporations who didn’t need them and weren’t asking for them; tax cuts that he once voted against because he said they “offended his conscience."

    Well they may have stopped offending John McCain’s conscience somewhere along the road to the White House, but George Bush’s economic policies still offend ours. Because I don’t think that the 232,000 Americans who’ve lost their jobs this year are seeing the great progress that John McCain has seen. I don’t think the millions of Americans losing their homes have seen that progress. I don’t think the families without health care and the workers without pensions have seen that progress. And if we continue down the same reckless path, I don’t think that future generations who’ll be saddled with debt will see these as years of progress.

    We already know that John McCain offers more of the same. The question is not whether the other party will bring about change in Washington – the question is, will we?
    Source

    Clearly the quote in question was part of Obama's argument that McCain would keep many of the same economic and foreign policies as George W. Bush, while his policies would be different and thus lead to different results. There is no promise to completely overhaul the way Washington works, implied or otherwise.

    I wish he would though...
    Last edited by Binary_Digit; 01-06-09 at 08:44 PM.

Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •