Posted on 10/08/2014 9:37:37 AM PDT by Kaslin
Sparring with Bill O’Reilly on cable television is one way to promote your new book -- but it’s not always the most fun. For example, watch in the interview below as the veteran television host cross-examines his guest for 12 straight minutes.
Panetta was asked (among other things) about his former boss’ incoherent foreign policy; his failure to leave a residual ground force presence in Iraq (which O’Reilly described as a “colossal blunder”); his tendency to blame the intelligence community for his own failures; and his utter surprise at the expansion and growth of ISIS.
For his part, Panetta didn’t go as far as to publicly disavow the man he once worked for but he didn't give him a resounding endorsement, either:
One gets the impression that Panetta wanted to criticize the president for his “mistakes” and “mixed" messaging, but for whatever reason never took the bait. For instance, when O'Reilly asserted that the president doesn’t have the "stomach” to fight ISIS, Panetta disagreed.
“I’m a guy who believes that Barack Obama -- by virtue of what I’ve seen in the time I was there -- has the guts to do the right thing,” he said. “The real question is will he make the decision to do it.”
Panetta argued that the president now finally understands the ISIS threat -- although he needs to do a much better job explaining to the public his policies and why destroying ISIS will “take time.”
I'll leave you with this: Charles Krauthammer calling the interview you just watched "utterly devastating" for the commander-in-chief. Take a look:
File this under a No Sh-t Sherlock moment for the cowardly bitch known as Leon Panetta.
Entirely possible. Saw him speak last week and he hit OBAMA pretty hard. He never mentioned Hillary though.
He’s just trying to sell books now.
“He has raised several fundamental issues he had with Obama’s policy and yet he stayed. He should have resigned if he really disagreed this much”
For God’s sake he’s a career politician and you expect honor?
.
Nope. Saddam needed to be taken down otherwise he would have continued to defy UN resolutions, firing at our pilots in the no fly zone, misusing oil for food money, his ugly sons would have gained more power and as the Duelfer report concluded would have re ignited his WMDs.
No politician had or has the guts to do what really needed to be done.
Bush had won the war and had us on the right track. In addition, the residual force would have remained in Iraq to send the message to Iran and Syria that our troops were ready to move at a moment's notice and you would not have the headlines of today.
On the contrary.
Not finishing Iraq off and not leaving it a smoking ruin in 1991 was where the mistake was made.
I know there are Freepers here who have too poor military comprehension to grasp this but:
Some situations are not appropriately corrected by nation building.
Sometimes a punitive war (or repeated ever more thorough series of punitive raids) is the most productive course.
The entire middle east does not have a culture compatible with the nation building approach.
I have no desire to see more US blood spilled on trying to instill a passion for personal freedom on people that clearly neither want nor deserve it.
You are forgetting that the purpose of the the first gulf war was to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait which was achieved. It was not to remove him from power. Second you are forgetting or ignoring that is it hadn’t been for the peanut farmer we would have never been in the situation with the middle east
*points to post #7* below
The often-criticized BOR asked tough and pertinent questions and got mostly namby pamby answers. But Panetta came across as pretty decent, especially for a Demonrat.
You’ve got to be kidding. It was a mistake to save Saudi Arabia in the first Gulf War (they repaid us with the 9/11 terrorists), and that is what led to the UN resolutions, which were guaranteed to lead to more conflict.
And won the war? In what sense? Putting Maliki, another thug and best buddy of Iran, in charge? The result was predictable. Maliki started cleansing Iraq of his enemies and eventually they fought back, the result is what we se today. Saddam was the glue that held that dump together, and ironically, Christians were left alone then. Was he a murderous thug? Well, duh, who isn’t over there? Maliki is just as bad, so why did we sacrifice so much to put him in power and light the fuse that led to civil war?
The people who pushed for the invasion of Iraq are despicable. They made grandiose promises - the war would be quick (don’t politicians always promise this?), Iraq’s oil money would pay for everything, and Iraq would be a shining example of how their brilliance could transform the world. Tell that to the families who have lost loved ones or had them come home permanently maimed. Politicians don’t give a rat’s butt about our troops.
That's a classic example of "having it both ways."
Nice to hear, I was worrying about that for a while.
100% correct. The only problem is a majority of Americans are idiots. Ergo a majority of politicians in bot parties are idiots. So here we are. Still populated by idiots, led by idiots and suffering the consequences of both.
Just as Stalin was "glue" I suppose.
Saddam would have re constituted his WMD program. You seem to have no problem with that.
The problem is they swallow pretty much everything the media tells them.
Including many right here on this forum.
If you think what has happened is better than your hypothetical scenario, then there isn’t much I can say. Thousands dead, a trillion or so spent, veterans suffering physical and emotional trauma for the rest of their lives, the rise of ISIS, a drain on our dwindling funds.. to me it’s a military blunder along the lines of when Gen. Custer decided it might be OK to pimp with a few Indians.
A middle east filled with totalitarian leaders ready to launch WMD and nuclear weapons at America is just fine with you? That’s what you are suggesting. They hate us and want to destroy us. We we go non-interventionist, that’s what they’ll do.
That’s not to say everything has gone right, but it’s war and war is hell. We didn’t start it, by the way. It’s in their culture to destroy, and they’ve made no secret about it.
Obama never talked to Maliki. He was left to wither on the vine. If a responsible follow up President was in office he would have talked to Maliki and supported him weekly.
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.