Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 98

Thread: Leon Panetta to be nominated CIA Director

  1. #61
    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
    Even more here it seems he's specifically making the case against HILLARY
    He said Hillary is one of the "same Washington players" that produced the "same results" he's criticizing, but then he picks her as the Secretary of State?

  2. #62
    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
    is he "lying"? i don't think thats the point. he made a clear campaign promise of change, then picked the very antagonist against that change for sec state.... to me it sends a message that the campaign of change was a prevarication at best and that he while maybe he is now being pragmatic, is doing exactly what he campaigned against.

    This pick for example is not that he picked someone inexperienced, this is a fact. the issue here is it is yet another clinton retread, or as he charged against hillary "same old washington politics".....

    There is no "change".

    See he is "playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result." This is precisley what he campaigned against.
    See, I disagree.

    He campaigned on change.

    There is change.

    Hillary is a huge change from the foreign policy of Condi. The guy in charge of the CIA is far different in skill set than the other ones. The appointments so far have been far more liberal than conservative.

    That is CHANGE.

    Now, you can say its not as much change as he promised. But that's a matter of interpretation. He never said EVERYONE of his appointments would be completely fresh to Washington or not tied to past administrations. His talk of "politics as usual" in some places seems more tied in the way people use politics to attack people, not actual policies, etc.

    You can not tell me, seriously, that the appointments he is putting into place are a "change" from the past 8 years Reverend. You just can't tell me that with a straight face.

    You can tell me its not the change YOU Thought he was talking about, or hoped he was talking about, but that's opinion. The fact is, it IS a change from the past 8 years.

    Which takes me back to the original statement on my part.

    If a democrat heard his words and his rhetoric and expected a systematic change in the way government works, with no washington insiders or veterans at all in any cabinet position, and every portion of government being turned on its head 100% then yes...it'd be a let down.

    If a democrat heard his words and his rhetoric and expected it to be a change from appointing people in line with the political views of the President, that he has ties to in some way, or may be for political reasons as much as logistic reasons then yes...it might be somewhat of a let down. (for example, Hillary in matters of foreign policy IS farther from Obama than Condi is from Bush, which is a bit of a change)

    If a democrat heard his words and rhetoric and expected a change from the policies and philosophy of the past 8 years. If they believed it was a change from the large spending on a long standing war on terror, little government oversight, and fiscal irresponsibility (in their mind). If they believe it was a change from the use of divisive wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage or politics of fear.....then no...they may NOT be let down now.

    My initial issue was the very aggressive, condescending way in which people responded to aps saying she isn't let down yet. From everything I read of aps...and if anyone says I'm just a liberal loving/aps lover you can go back and see me and her argued a LOT about Obama...she seems mostly in that last category, with a little of the 2nd category, and very little of the first. So I think its perfectly understable for her not to be let down yet.

    People then countered me by saying how could she not be let down with him lieing about "change"...which led to this whole discussion of me showing that he didn't LIE about change, the issue is the ASSUMPTIONS people made about HOW MUCH change and WHAT KIND of change he meant.

  3. #63
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: Leon Panetta to be nominated CIA Director

    You can disagree all you want my friend.


    it is obvious however from my links the context he was talking about. he was the washington outsider canidate, his statments in dec 07 were directed at hillary, the icon of the old guard.....


    Here is another article that was swooning over the change obama promised.

    Obama Vows to Change Washington


    some more:

    IPI General Opinions - Editorial - Will Barack Obama Change Washington?




    "At this defining moment in history, we believe that Americans of all parties want and need their leaders to come together and change the bad habits of Washington so that we can solve the common and urgent challenges of our time," they said in a joint statement.

    note he says on nov 18th that leaders of both parties should come together to change washington..... he is with mccain when he makes this statment.

    Obama, McCain Agree on 'Change' for Washington - WSJ.com


    and the socialists are pissed too....

    From politics of hope to politics as usual | SocialistWorker.org



    he lets people blog on his sight about this very change:

    Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need | Gary Lynch's Blog: Not politics as usual





    I can keep going, but to me this "change" was to change washington, not change from bush. show me one post prior to the election where ANY poster suggests this, even Aps. For them now to claim that the change was the change from Bush (he couldn't run again so we were getting that change anyway) is ludicious, and they are all fooling themselves.
    Last edited by ReverendHellh0und; 01-07-09 at 08:53 AM.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  4. #64
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: Leon Panetta to be nominated CIA Director

    here is a link from a thread.

    McCain says 'change is coming' - Jeanne Cummings - Politico.com


    what change is McCain talking about?

    Now onto aps...

    This should dispell all question:

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/archiv...post1057549948

    After reading IT stating that hillary is what we need the change from and that obama should be hammering on it.

    Aps agrees.....

    Obama does exactly this throuught the campaign.

    She was fully aware all the way back in March....




    A post where she acknowledges Obama is a "change" from Kerry:

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1057503083




    here she states that if Carville joined hill dogs staff it would prove she is not about the change Obama claimed to be:

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1057501427





    I think I more than proved my case that Aps and the rest of the left viewed this change as change from all washington politics, not just Bush.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  5. #65
    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 Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    I think I more than proved my case that Aps and the rest of the left viewed this change as change from all washington politics, not just Bush.
    I definitely thought he meant change from Washington politics.

  6. #66
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: Leon Panetta to be nominated CIA Director

    Quote Originally Posted by aps View Post
    I definitely thought he meant change from Washington politics.



    Thank you for your honesty.

    Let me ask you, are you concerned about his picks thus far, given they are exactly not the change from Washington politics he promised?

    I mean picking Hillary alone quashed that idea.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  7. #67
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Leon Panetta to be nominated CIA Director

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    And doing such from a hypocritical stance doesn't work. You can't demand the liberals/dems to hold their candidate to the same standards as Bush when you yourself are holding Obama to a higher standard than you held Bush.
    What it comes down to is that the liberal/Dem criticism of Bush will be shown for the partisan bigotry that it was.

  8. #68
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 06:57 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,198

    Re: Leon Panetta to be nominated CIA Director

    You have to change Washington from the inside. Do you think alienating Congress would bring about any change? He has to reach out to the establishment to an extent in order to get anything done. I'm not happy about the Hillary appointment, but I understand it. I doubt she would have taken a lesser role and he needs her allies on board in order to accomplish things.
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



  9. #69
    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
    You can disagree all you want my friend.
    Ditto my friend.

    Thanks for all the links that in no way show that he stated he would unequivically change every facet of how washington worked and would use nothing but people without experience in washington for his appoitned positions.

    I can keep going, but to me this "change" was to change washington, not change from bush.
    And thank you...that's my point all along. To you. Your interpritation. Your assumption. Your belief from the words he said and the way he portrayed himself. Just like peoples assumption, interpritation, and belief about Bush and the Iraq War and 9/11.

    Quote Originally Posted by aps View Post
    I definitely thought he meant change from Washington politics.
    Then yes, you seem to fall into category two that I wrote...unless you thought everyone he'd appoint would have no connection to any other democrat, never worked in washington, etc.

    The carvelle thing is a great example. Carvelle was known as a master at attack, mud slinging politics which...by Reverend's own youtube video...Obama seems to be decrying as "typical Washington Politics". Bringing carvelle on wouldn't be a change from that, Obama was trying to say his campaign was.

    Politics is a gigantic sweeping term, that can run the gammot from policy to presentation.

    I would question you aps if you weren't a bit disallusioned by the pick of Hillary because it seemed not a change to "typical politics", as it seems likely that it was a pick of someone for political appeasement. At the same time, I could understand wanting to "see how it goes", as "typical" washington politics would've also meant appointing someone as far left on the war as Obama was to your top foreign post...and yet he picked someone to the right of him (which is still left ). So in some ways, it was not a change, in others, it was.

    I think some republicans here are intentionally twisting Obama's message to an utmost extreme to get a "gotcha" situation. If he appoints someone with ANY washington experience at all, they cry "Its not change, its not change!". However if he appointed someone WITHOUT any washington experience they'd cry out "He's not experienced, he's not experienced".

    There is more to a nomination beyond where a guy worked to tell you if its like the standard things.

    My issue is not with believing this to be a bad appointment, I believe it is.

    My issue isn't even saying negative things about Obama's promise of change. (Hell, I did that myself in my first post. Because this was EXACTLY the type of Change I thought Obama was truly meaning, but managed to present himself in such a way that people just naturally THOUGHT he was meaning more)

    My issue is with attacking people for not being "disallusioned" with Obama when he's not completely broken with his campaign statements and with it still possible to look at what he's done and come up with a reasonable explanation that its in line with what he's said. My issue is with people trying to say he flat out lied about change, but defend Bush didn't lie, when to reach a conclussion that he actually intentionally purposefully knowingly mislead one must make assumptions about what kind of Change he meant exactly.

  10. #70
    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 Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Thank you for your honesty.

    Let me ask you, are you concerned about his picks thus far, given they are exactly not the change from Washington politics he promised?

    I mean picking Hillary alone quashed that idea.
    I am concerned. I was appalled when Hillary was selected for Secretary of State. I have come to terms with it and will wait to see how she does in that position. I feel pretty confident that a deal was made for this position when Hillary finally bowed out of the nomination race.

    I don't know much about Leon Panetta, but when I heard he was the choice for CIA, I thought, "WHAT?" I totally understand why people are up in arms. It's a weird pick. The fact that Obama didn't talk to the leaders of the intelligence committee is ridiculous. What could he have been thinking?

    Having said that, I am still reserving judgment on these picks to see how they handle their jobs.

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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
  •