Posted on 10/14/2013 7:22:17 PM PDT by kristinn
Leon Panetta served in Washington with nine presidents, starting with Lyndon Johnson. He has been a member of Congress, Office of Management and Budget director, White House chief of staff, director of the Central Intelligence Agency and secretary of defense — the last two under President Obama. He is a man who knows Washington and knows how to choose his words. So Panetta’s implicit rebuke of the president’s hands-off approach to the budget crisis at a breakfast Monday was striking.
Indeed, implicit may be an understatement. Asked repeatedly whether he was being correctly understood as critical of President Obama, Panetta was careful to assert that “I don’t want to put it all on the president” and that there is “enough blame to go around.” But he did not spare Obama.
“We govern either by leadership or crisis... If leadership is not there, then we govern by crisis,” Panetta said at the start of the session, sponsored by The Wall Street Journal. “Clearly, this town has been governing by crisis after crisis after crisis.”
Which raised the obvious question: What does this say about the president’s leadership?
Several observations ensued. “This town has gotten a lot meaner in the last few years.” Relationships have deteriorated. Redistricting into safe seats hasn’t helped. Neither has the explosion of money in campaigns, or the elimination of earmarks. (Negotiating one Clinton budget, Panetta recalled, “I think I sold about six bridges to get there.”)
Then, to Obama. “This president — he’s extremely bright, he’s extremely able, he’s somebody who I think certainly understands the issues, asks the right questions, and I think has the right instincts about what needs to be done for the country.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
You wanted it, you got it, you’re the goat!
Panetta!??
Has retirement mellowed him . . . . . or just made him senile? He NEVER goes against der Furher, no matter who he is!
Nah. He is just speaking as a proxy for his Clintonian masters.
Ping
Thomas Jefferson:
"Sitting near me on some occasion of a trifling but wordy debate, he asked how I could sit in silence hearing so much false reasoning which a word should refute? I observed to him that to refute indeed was easy, but to silence impossible. That in measures brought forward by myself, I took the laboring oar, as was incumbent on me; but that in general I was willing to listen. If every sound argument or objection was used by some one or other of the numerous debaters, it was enough: if not, I thought it sufficient to suggest the omission, without going into a repetition of what had been already said by others. That this was a waste and abuse of the time and patience of the house which could not be justified. And I believe that if the members of deliberative bodies were to observe this course generally, they would do in a day what takes them a week, and it is really more questionable, than may at first be thought, whether Bonaparte's dumb legislature which said nothing and did much, may not be preferable to one which talks much and does nothing. I served with General Washington in the legislature of Virginia before the revolution, and, during it, with Dr. Franklin in Congress. I never heard either of them speak ten minutes at a time, nor to any but the main point which was to decide the question. They laid their shoulders to the great points, knowing that the little ones would follow of themselves. If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send 150. lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, & talk by the hour? That 150. lawyers should do business together ought not to be expected."
Is Leon the Panetta considering running for POTUS against the “Most Admired Woman in America?”
Whatever will Mrs. Bill Clinton do if that is true? Oh me! Oh my!
BTW, wasn’t Leon P. put in charge of operations by Barry S. on the night of the Benghazi Massacre?
Sounds like a lack of leadership quality to me - - - .
What’s the Clintonistas’ plan here?
And after the press paints all the left as “united” and the so-called conservatives “divided” too. Reality hits home . . .
A hands-off President is lazy and inept. That's what we have right now.
He’s just a racist.(/s)
Five lies in one sentence. Pretty good, even for a Clintonista.
And he's really not doing so here.
If Leon P was in charge during Benghazi-night, then he had to be one of the people who told the SPECOPs forces to stand down. Would he, the seasoned politician, do that?
Panetta’s son is navy Intel, and good ole Leon let those Bengazi SEALs die
I think that says a very lot.
This can be traced to, and directly correlated with, the rise of the new media and the demise of the Democrat "mainstream" newsroom monopoly on the selection, dissemination, and spin of the daily news.
“Perhaps leaders in Washington today might consider Jefferson’s description of how he and his contemporaries in the early days approached matters of interest for the new nation”
in those days, both side were god fearing, good Christian men.
More generally, evil has risen.
True enough; agreed to disagree on policy, but concurred on who the Lord was.
Panetta can be a real d**k. But once in a while, he goes for the jugular when a Democrat is wrong. I gotta give him props for that.
That answer cleared up my ....huh?? Thanks. :-)
I don't get that either. What evidence is there that ANY of this is true?
Good question.
IMHO, most Democrats, and their “Leftstream” Media KNOW that Republicans cannot win elections because:
* Weekly preemptive opinion poll attacks will make them afraid of their own shadows;
* Most voters hate politics, so the “Leftstream” Media gives out only low-information, anti-Republican news every day;
* “Everybody knows” that the Republicans are split so badly on foolish issues such as Obamacare that the sensible Republicans would never support a POTUS Candidate who is not in the mold of Dole, McCain or Romney.
* Republicans are nice to have around to be blamed if things go wrong, but they should never be taken seriously as potential challengers for any public service elected office.
Thus, Panetta knows that he must distance himself early from the Obama-Reid Regime, hope that the Benghazi Massacre can somehow be blamed on some Bush appointed General, and set his sights on beating the unstoppable “Chains” Biden and Mrs. Bill Clinton, “The most admired woman in America.”
Forward!
Leon Panetta seems to understand that Obama needs someone to step forward and rescue him from the current crises he’s gotten himself involved in, just as Vladimir Putin rescued him from last month’s Syria crisis.
However, Vladimir Putin was successful because, unlike Leon Panetta, he did not mince words about Obama’s foolish actions, and, in addition, he was given the opportunity to criticize Obama about those actions and, in fact, about his entire misbegotten foreign policy, on the New York Times’s op-ed page.
Leon Panetta is not Vladimir Putin, either in terms of courage, forthrightness, or the ability to convince the New York Times to give him editorial space, so Obama’s going to have to find another savior than his friend Leon.
Panetta got the shiv from the Kenyan Klown Kakistocrat. Payback.
Must be Opposite Day.
“Panetta can be a real d**k. But once in a while, he goes for the jugular when a Democrat is wrong. I gotta give him props for that.”
I’ll give Panetta this. Among the cast of Dem reprobates over the last 20 years he seems to be somewhat, sorta genuine. He seems to speak his mind rather than recite the Dem talking points. He is no DWS or Jay Carney. More Bill Richardson. A left-of-center person who can pick up the vibe on the street and understand it more than his leftist programming.
I dunno. A Lefty as POTUS? I’d have to take Panetta or Richardson over Obama or Hillary any day. Nightmares be what they may...
Maybe the town has gotten meaner, but why don't y'all get out in "flyover country" and spout what you really think. You haven't seen mean.
At first blush, Panetta speaking at all is always a cue that he is speaking with the Clintons interests in mind.
Then someone suggests Panetta might want to run himself. That never occurred to me, but he is certainly experienced enough, very prepared for the political price and imagine the goods he has on everyone in DC, and the grifters from Arkansas included, even Chelsea pooh.
Their plan? My guess would be to paint Hillary as someone who can reach across the aisle and get things done.
Wait....I know I’ve hear that somewhere before....
They don't believe him so they keep asking, hoping that he will change his reply. Nice try.
Thank you for that post.
An example of why a classical education is no longer taught:
It was a great bullshit sifter.
We sorely need more classical education. It actually taught people to think.
He was born in 1938. That makes him 75 now. On inauguration day he will be 78 and he'll be 82 at the end of his first term, if he lives that long. He doesn't look healthy right now.
Reagan was just short of 70 when first inaugurated.
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
I don’t think there is an ounce of wisdom in Panetta, and I fear, that he is just as much a Marxist as Obama, he just doesn’t like the process of how Obama is implementing Marxism in America.
In other words, he wants to get to the same objective, he just doesn’t like the road that Obama is taking to get there.
Seriously, I agree with you that Panetta will not be running. There was a time that he was a thought a decent Democrat, but his ambition belied his “ aw’shucks “ mannerisms, as he sidled up to the Marxists.
One last thought on this post: why in the world would anyone who had been intimately involved in an Administration feel the need to affirm that their former boss is "bright" and understands the "issues"? Wouldn't that be a given?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.