Leon Panetta is a scary, scary man

[MannyGoldstein]

Listened to a podcast today, of Leon Panetta on the Diane Rehm show.

Holy $&@#.

Rehm made a full-frontal accusation that Panetta threw the President under the bus. Panetta responded that he wished his critics would read the book. Then Panetta criticized the President for giving up against the Republicans.

Speaking of people who might not give up... Panetta made sure that Benghazi got discussed, and to tell us that it was a tragedy but we did the best we could. I think he was working that in for Hillary, to complement the "we need tough leadership that won't give up" meme.

But for me, the highlight of the show was Terra! Terra!

Apparently, we have a terrible Terra! problem. ISIS is truely the worst worst-enemy-ever. An even-eviler and better trained foe than al Qaeda, and it's metastasized so it can be anywhere.

Terrible, terrifying Terra! It will require 30 years to defeat our newest most-terrible foe, and boots will be needed on the ground, but definitely not US boots. Someone else's. Hopefully someone else will step up to do it, that's not a bunch of savage scoundrels themselves. But it has to be done. Hell, Obama should have done it long time ago. Then whoever offs ISIS can go on to off Assad.

Panetta's got big plans for decades of bloodletting.

Now, I'm not a licensed therapist of any sort, nor have I stayed at any chain of hotels that imbue me with great intelligence... but I think that Mr. Panetta is dangerously crazy. What has this country come to, that people with such a bias for blood and death run large swaths of our government?

It is a sickness.

We need to say no.

[madokie]

1. Leon is trying to sell a book

and in doing so we get a glimpse into what kind of a fella he is. I say screw him

[MannyGoldstein]

4. I almost wonder if he's *trying* to hurt Democratic turnout

Nothing inspirational; just the President sucks, and we need decades of war.

[madokie]

7. It sure seems that way

I remember years ago when he was in the senate I had a lot of respect for him. He seemed to be on the same page as I but thats not the case anymore thats for sure.

[MADem]

24. He was in the House. CA 16th District, south of SF, agricultural area, mostly.

He garnered a lot of national defense street cred down the years -- mainly because FT Ord and the NPGS used to be in his district (they redrew the lines so who knows what that district looks like today).

Bottom line--he's old, pushing eighty, and as you noted he is selling a book.

This is a tempest in a teapot in the big scheme, but I do think it is part of a "roll out" for 2016 in the sense that no matter who the candidate is, no matter what party, they always have to "run against" the incumbent. Al Gore "ran against" Bill Clinton by putting Lieberman (who excoriated POTUS on the Senate floor) on his ticket. People are always thirsty for change when an election presents an opportunity for one, so there has to be an element of criticism of the status quo, even if it is somewhat manufactured/hyped, in order for a candidate to break out and not just be more of the same.

Politicians who are in power while this dynamic is playing out, like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, understand this, they don't necessarily love it because they are getting the critique/finger wags, but they don't take it all that seriously, either. It's par for the course.

[madokie]

26. Mybad, sorry

I'm getting old too
so I forget sometimes
I try not to but the reality is I do

[MADem]

27. He's had so many roles in DC it's easy to conflate--he's done well for a House member.

He was at OMB, at the WH, and then of course Defense and CIA. I'm probably more aware of him than most because I've interacted with him in the distant past.

Last House member to do as well was Big Dick Cheney outta Wy!! Of course, he had ultimate clout--he got away with shooting a guy in the face!

[madokie]

31. Not only got away with it

but didn't the guy apologize for putting his face in front of the gun. It takes some chutzpah to make a guy do that

On the matter I still think that maybe the dicks girlfriend was the shooter and the dick took the fall for her. Wanted to keep her out of the picture as lynne might get pissed and he sure didn't want that to happen as she's a nasty one, cut your head off and shit down your throat kind of gal

[MADem]

33. I always thought Dick was DRUNK. Shootin' while drinkin' is what I'm-a thinkin'!!!!

Hence, the delay in reporting the accident to the "authorities" and the delay in any cop laying eyes on Big Dick.

Whether alcohol played any role in the shooting has long been a point of speculation. Eyewitnesses, including ranch owner Anne Armstrong and her daughter Katharine, strongly denied it. Cheney did, too, although he later told Fox News that he had had "one beer" during a picnic lunch some five hours earlier. Whittington says alcohol "was available" at the picnic, but he didn't notice if anyone was drinking at lunch or afterward when the hunting party took a midafternoon break. The police investigation was useless on this point; even if Cheney had been given a Breathalyzer test, the result would have been meaningless since authorities didn't speak to Cheney until the next morning.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/13/AR2010101307173.html

[madokie]

35. Well that too

You or I would more than likely have seen a jail cell out of that if it'd been us doing the shooting. Thats the part that galls me is the two sets of laws, one for us and not much for them.

[MADem]

36. Hell, if it were me, I'd probably STILL be in jail for the crime!!!!

There's justice, and there's justice. The "bought and paid for" kind is more reliable in guaranteeing acquittal for the accused. Otherwise, it's the luck of the draw and all you can do is hope like hell the prosecution doesn't have a political agenda on top of everything else. Sadly.

[merrily]

29. During this tour, he has said Hillary will make a strong President.

So, maybe he isn't trying to depress 2016 turnout?

[merrily]

54. The timing of this book tour strongly supports your thought. After election day

would have been a better time to start to encourage people to buy the books as holiday gift, assuming anyone wanted to distribute warmongering for Hanukkah or Christmas.

[DonCoquixote]

63. of course he is

hear me out, while that line should be a joke, it is not.

After all, if we kept the Senate, then Hillary will have even less of an excuse for the sell outs she will make to her friends. If the senate and house are blue, she can just sit back, signing bills that she knows will die in the capitol, but unlike Barack Obama, the press will say she is brave.

Easiest Gig in the world.

[2banon]

19. Oh, he's trying to do more than sell a book. He's got big plans for another post in 2016.

[MADem]

25. He's too old. He'll be 78 in 2016. I doubt this very much. nt

[merrily]

30. How old is Kissinger? Sure, he has no cabinet position, but he is still influential.

And heaven only knows the age of retirement in think tanks.

[MADem]

34. I was responding to a suggestion that he was seeking another "post" two years from now.

I doubt the poster was referring to think tanks, but you can ask him if you would like.

[merrily]

37. I was responding to the same point, as modified by your age comment.

"Post" can mean any job, not exclusively an official government position. But, again, my reply obviously focused on your age comment.

I doubt the poster was referring to think tanks, but you can ask him if you would like.

No kidding. But, it was your age comment that I wanted to respond to, as indicated by the fact that it was what I chose to respond to.

I do always appreciate your frequent input on what I can or should be posting, though, even if I usually choose not to follow it.

[MADem]

40. Yes, the word post "can" mean that, but when the year 2016 is added in, the inference is that the

"post" is in the incoming administration.


After all, one can get hired at a think tank anytime.

You routinely seek me out (as you did in this exchange) looking for my "frequent input," so I'm glad you appreciate it.

[merrily]

44. Um, no, no and no.

You routinely seek me out (as you did in this exchange) looking for my "frequent input," so I'm glad you appreciate it.

I never seek you out, any more than you have sought me out when you've responded to me. When I have time or am procrastinating, I read a thread from OP to bottom and respond as I am moved to respond. If you look at this thread alone, you will see several such responses. I have not sought out those posters, either. Nor have I ever looked for your frequent input, or for any comment that is not about issues. You have often volunteered both, though and, when that happens, I may respond to both.


I caught the reference to 2016 and Panetta has been praising Hillary during his book tour. However, changes in DC administrations results in all kinds of changes in jobs, not only Cabinet positions (and not only posts in think tanks, either.) Point is, regardless of age, people can have both jobs and influence on politicians.

[MADem]

71. I was speaking with someone else, and you interjected yourself into the conversation to challenge me

as you routinely do.

I didn't go looking to have a conversation with you--after the way you treated me on primary day, I really am not motivated to converse overmuch with you.

[merrily]

74. I have already responded to that. See my prior post on the subject.

As far as interjecting, that happens all the time on a message board and, for that matter, IRL. People who want a private conversation that no one else can comment on use DU mail.

But, as long as you've raised this, it's certainly not as though you've never done the same yourself. And kept on until I said I was done with replying to you on that thread. And you'd still go on anyway.

If you don't wish to respond to me, there's certainly no penalty for that. I certainly survived leaving off replying to you on a number of threads.

[MADem]

76. Yes, so you have. nt

[Autumn]

2. Decades of bloodletting

It's worse than a sickness Manny.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Decades.

I felt ill as I listened. Kids, killed.

[Maedhros]

22. It would help if people would stop voting for politicians that do this shit. [n/t]

[merrily]

32. If a majority of people did that, yes, it would help.

But a huge number has been conditioned not to do that and too frightened of voting anything but Democratic or Republican, no matter how many clothespins they have to take to voting booth. And that's the ones that are even thinking before they pull the lever for one of those parties or the other.

It would take fortunes I can barely imagine to counter both of the largest political parties and the mass media combined. Meanwhile, the big donors are going to go with one of those two because they don't want to send their money down the hopper, either. And those are the donors who are even thinking before they write a check to one of those parties or the other.

This debate between O'Donnell and Russell Brand put forth both positions very well, IMO. It's not a very long video. I highly recommend it (which is why I posted it.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017220798

[wilsonbooks]

5. I've been saying no

since the 60's, along with millions of others. Fat lot of good that it does.

[riderinthestorm]

6. The Diane Rehm show is a small light in the MSM darkness... A real treasure

There are DUers who know Diane personally and say she's as lovely, and democratic, in person as she is on the show.

K&R

[MannyGoldstein]

9. She personally went after Panetta

I was amazed. She's not an attack dog, but she got a shot in.

[merrily]

38. What did she have to say when he was nominated, though?

Was she okay with him as head of the CIA and as Secretary of Defense, but incensed only after he was out of office, but criticized Obama as a author whose book I never need buy?

If the latter, then to quote a country song I heard by accident once, "That don't impress me much."

[kelliekat44]

21. One of my favorites. Best show on radio with best host. One can learn a lot by tuning in to her.

[stupidicus]

8. it's gonna require more than that

The moral, political and economic violence of neoliberalism must be made visible, its institutional structures dismantled, and the elite interests it serves exposed. http://truth-out.org/news/item/26817-henry-a-giroux-beyond-orwellian-nightmares-and-neoliberal-authoritarianism

but what some of us do around here is a good start.

For example, I'd think it goes without saying that you "third-wayers" are oblivious to the magnitude/scope of the problem ...lol... and your participatory role in its perpetuation.

I kid of course...

[woo me with science]

14. "The moral, political and economic violence of neoliberalism must be made visible..."

That just needs repeating and putting in bold. Thank you.

[font size=3]
The moral, political and economic violence of neoliberalism must be made visible, its institutional structures dismantled, and the elite interests it serves exposed.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/26817-henry-a-giroux-beyond-orwellian-nightmares-and-neoliberal-authoritarianism

[/div
[/font size]Thank you.


.

[Liberal_Dog]

10. Washington DC Is Addicted To War

And, like any addict, it will do whatever is necessary to get it.

[merrily]

48. Even most heroin addicts stop short of mass murder and hacking off limbs.

For example: http://warchronicle.com/numbers/WWII/deaths.htm

[agentS]

11. Panetta's probably right about decades of bloodshed

But he's wrong about everything else, like on Obama being "weak" and on Iraq keeping US troops after 2010 deadline.
WHICH, IF PANETTA CANNOT RECALL, THE IRAQI's DID NOT WANT TO AGREE TO.
What does he think, that we OWN Iraqi? Even Bush II didn't think like that.

I guess he wants that Clinton money more than he does a decent legacy....

[MADem]

28. The Iraqis did not want to keep the SOFA. They would have been delighted to keep the troops.

It's hot as hell there; who doesn't want some other guys to do the heavy lifting if someone else is willing to do it? They've got to sell the oil anyways, and OPEC sets the rates. A cost-benefit analysis no doubt made it six of one/half dozen of the other in terms of how much profit they'd make.

I'll bet if they had it to do over again, they'd have taken the SOFA deal. Too late now, though and just as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/15/iraq-withdrawal-us-troops_n_1012661.html

[merrily]

42. The Iraqis refused to agree with Obama to keep the SOFA beyond Bush's withdrawal date.

My understanding is that SOFA requires, among many other things, indemnification of our military and our private contractors for rape, intentional murder. It's a Hobson's choice

[MADem]

72. The SOFA gives USA the prosecutorial high ground; that doesn't mean that personnel are not

prosecuted, and that does not mean that civil "retribution" payouts in the custom of the region are not made; it simply means that any prosecution would be done by US personnel in a military setting.

The SOFA as written for Iraq provided immunity to servicemembers and state department contractors; no immunity, but the usual state department coordination, for other contractor personnel.

Iraq wanted these individuals to fall under Iraqi law regardless of the criminal accusation; we just don't do that. Never have. We have SOFA agreements in every nation where we "permanently" base personnel--some more restrictive than others, based on the sophistication of the criminal justice system in those nations, pretty much.

Most people believe that Bush wanted to make that Green Zone monstrosity a permanent, massive middle-eastern base. Iraqi refusal to accede to a SOFA obviated that plan. Just as well.

[merrily]

73. Put another way, the SOFA required Iraq-or any nation--to give up the inherent sovereign right of

all nations to prosecute crimes committed on their soil, in the case of a SOFA by our military and sometimes by our private contractors, including rape and intentional murder, torture (Abu Ghraib), etc.

Then, the US decides whether or not to prosecute at all, for which crimes, what the sentence will be and how much time served, if any will suffice. And even if the US were to prosecute, prosecutions of people like Calley and England and Graner tell us what could happen.

The SOFA as written for Iraq provided immunity to service members and state department contractors; no immunity, but the usual state department coordination, for other contractor personnel.

Which SOFA written for Iraq? There was more than one and immunity for private contractors, including for rape and intentional murder, was in at least one of them. I believe that ended in 2008, when the US (Bush) agreed to relent some as to the private contractors. I don't know the terms of the one Obama was asking them to agree to in order for us to stay beyond Bush's withdrawal date.

Most people believe that Bush wanted to make that Green Zone monstrosity a permanent, massive middle-eastern base. Iraqi refusal to accede to a SOFA obviated that plan.

I don't know what most people believe about the Green Zone or what that has to do anything. However, regardless of what he supposedly wanted, Bush negotiated our withdrawal from Iraq, including a withdrawal date. Later, the Obama administration tried to extend it, but Iraq would not agree to a SOFA, so the Obama administration went forward with what Bush had negotiated. So, Democrats who praised him for ending the war in Iraq were mistaken and Republicans who now blame him for the withdrawing too soon are not on the money, either.

I also know that our military personnel remain there after the withdrawal--not as many as before the withdrawal, of course--along with hundreds of private contractors. I have not googled to see what the numbers were right before we started to get back into Iraq.

All that being said, the point of my prior reply was that, for Iraq, or for any nation, SOFAs are a Hobson's choice. And indeed they are.

[MADem]

75. Generally speaking, they are reciprocal to some extent.

Since there are few (but some) foreign forces who are permanently stationed in USA, though there are many more who are here on temporary duty, usually for training, most fall under a Visiting Forces Agreement when they are in USA. However, those on PCS orders or who are here under a NATO imprimatur if they are on orders from a NATO nation fall under a SOFA arrangement (we have a multilateral arrangement).

People who are military and are assigned to a country via an embassy receive diplomatic immunity, which is, in essence, the same protections as a SOFA. It is also common for State to negotiate a SOFA concurrent with a specific military exercise or aid effort, with defined timelines. These are less problematic, politically speaking, than long term agreements.

[Zen Democrat]

12. Leon is doing all of this for the Clintons. He's their boy through and through.

[bigwillq]

13. Yes, he is.

Another Obama mistake picking that fool to head anything.

[merrily]

39. Very consistent with most or all of Obama's nominees, though.

All those appointments may have been a mistake, but they were no accident and I've yet to hear any one admit any mistakes.

[zentrum]

15. Turns out....

..he's a bottom feeder.

[merrily]

43. There were signs of that when he was nominated, though. Where were all the critics then?

[markpkessinger]

16. Rachel Maddow called him out on her show on Monday night . . .

. . . here's an excerpt of the relevant part of the transcript:

< . . . . >

Leon Panetta published a book last week talking all sorts of smack against President Obama. He has since been doing an aggressive series of national media interviews talking about how President Obama is a bad leader and he`s weak and he`s made bad decisions about national security issues that Leon Panetta would have done better.

This time around, there`s something weird going an. We`ve something like this with Don Regan and the Reagan era, and we saw something like this with Dick Morris, and the Clinton era. But this one in the Obama era has something weird going on, because the criticisms that Leon Panetta is lobbying levying against President Obama do not seem to be his own criticisms. And I mean it this way. When Leon Panetta was defense secretary, he staunchly defended and argued for President Obama`s decision to take U.S. troops out of Iraq.

Now that Panetta has fled Washington and written his tell-all book, he says taking troops out of Iraq, that was a terrible decision. He wouldn`t have taken troops out of Iraq at all.

He`s also complaining now that President Obama was basically too slow on decisions about Syria, too deliberate. He`s taking in too much information and just not acting fast enough when it came to the question of getting involved in Syria. President Obama is basically saying that the beef on Panetta is Obama is too darn careful.

Leon Panetta knew better. He would have rushed right in on Syria. That`s what he says now that he`s selling his tell-all, right?

Here`s what he said about it when he was actually defense secretary.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEON PANETTA, FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY: It`s not that easy to deal with some of the concerns that are out there. But nevertheless, we`re working at it. We are trying to engage with these other countries.

There are other countries that are interested in trying to provide provisions. We are working with them. We are talking with them. And we are looking at every option to try to put that in place.

Can it happen today? Can it happen now? No, it`s going to take some work. It`s going to take some time. But when we do it, we`ll do it right. We will not do it in a way that will make the situation worse. That`s what we have to be careful of.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: And then the same guy wrote a book about how President Obama is just being too darn careful about these things. Going too slow.

Since leaving the administration, Leon Panetta, I have to tell you, has a new job. He`s become senior council at something called Beacon Global Strategies. The managing director and co-founder of Beacon Global Strategies is a guy named Philippe Reines who has been part of Hillary Clinton`s political operation since her time in the United States Senate and her time at the State Department.

[font size=3]Philippe Reines is widely expected to be the spokesman for the Hillary Clinton campaign once she officially starts running for president again. [/font]For now, he runs the firm that employs Leon Panetta. And Leon Panetta has just written a book making the patented Hillary Clinton anti-Barack Obama campaign charge that Barack Obama as president is weak on national security and he hasn`t been enthusiastic enough and fast enough when it comes to using force. Obviously, that means someone like Hillary Clinton who would be much more hawkish would therefore be a much better president.

< . . . . >

(emphasis added).

This explains a lot, I think. And you're right -- it IS sick!

[MannyGoldstein]

23. This explains it pretty well:

http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/parasites_flukelarvae

You'll have to fill in some of the details on your own, or else The Swarm will vex me.

[merrily]

46. Please see Reply 38.

[markpkessinger]

58. What does a post about Diane Rehm have to do with Rachel Maddow;s reporting on the issue?

If you are trying to suggest that Rachel Maddow did her report on Panetta merely because Pabnetta came out with a book critical of the President, youre full of shit. Rachel Maddow has herself been critical of the Obama administration on numerous occasions, so she is hardly someone who goes after someone merely for criticizing President Obama. I mean, Glenn Greenwald has been a frequent guest ob her show, and she never "webt after" him for his criticisms of President Obama. If you watch the segment from Monday nights show, she simply points out that many of Panetta's statements in his book that are critical of Obama's handling of various foreign policy issues are completely inconsistent with his own statements just a short time ago when he was Secretary of Defense, when he vigorously defended those same actions by the President. Maddow's report was not a rush to the President's defense nor an attack on Panetta's position (indeed, she was pointing out that it is hard to know what his true opinions are, given his contradictions of himself). And by way of possible explanation, she pointed out that Panetta is now working for a firm that is very closely tied to Hillary Clinton's prospective 2016 campaign.

Personally, I have had plenty of criticisms of President Obama on quite a number of issues. But I don't agree with Hillary's (and now Leon's) views that we should be taking an even more hawkish approach to foreign policy merely because Hillary and Leon are staking out that position as a vantage point for criticism of President Obama.

[merrily]

59. As Jon Stewart might say, you seem nice.

[markpkessinger]

66. After reading some of your other posts in this thread . . .

. . . i get what you were doing. Sorry for the confusion. And I agree with you that Panetta's 'qualities' (if you can call them that!) were, or should have been, already known. Frankly, I was puzzled over his selection both as CIA director and as Secretary of Defense -- neither position for which he appeared to have any particular qualifications.

[Tweedy]

67. Qualifications

It seemed to me he had the rare qualification of being a democrat the senate could confirm despite the usual gop obstruction of everything.

[DefenseLawyer]

17. He's what we call a "shill"

If you hire these hacks in the first place you deserve the inevitable blowback. Team of rivals... Whatever.

[merrily]

49. I don't agree with all that, but I do agree Obama should not have nominated him in the first place.

The writing was on the wall then, but Obama liked appointing Republicans, like Gates, and Clintonites, including Hillary and Panetta, Panetta also having been a Nixonite.

I still think Panetta should STFU or at least have postponed this book launch until after midterms.

Whatever Obama may or may not deserve--and I don't think he deserves this from the people whom he hired, even though I don't like his hires--all Democrats running don't deserve this shit at this time and the country doesn't deserve a Republican House and Senate, esp. with a lame duck President.

[rhett o rick]

64. Sorry to continue with the same song, but the answer to the question of why

Pres Obama appoints conservatives instead of moderates or liberals, just might be that he isn't allowed to do otherwise.

Why do we think the day he became president that he became all powerful over groups and people that have been entrenched for decades? We really want to think that because we don't want to come to grips with the possible alternative.

Either Pres Obama is horrible at making good appointments or he is getting some help from those with higher paygrades.

Who would ever have guessed that Leon Panetta would turn on him like a mad dog?

[merrily]

65. If it is the same old song, you are singing to the choir.

Election day, 2008, I was so excited I to vote. I had not slept much all night. I was on line to vote over an hour before the polls opened because I just could not wait until after everyone with a 9 to 5 job had gone to work. Not having slept the night before, I fell asleep after supper. I woke to see the Obama family, dressed in red and black and about to give a victory speech. I wept for joy.

Then he appointed Rahm chief of staff; and I gasped inwardly. Then, Geithner and Gates, Hillary. By the time I learned that Warren was to give the invocation, I was almost numb. By the time he scolded the left for asking for a public option n(so much for "make me do it&quot , I thought there was nothing else he could do to surprise me and, so far, he hasn't surprised me again. So, there's that.

Either Pres Obama is horrible at making good appointments or he is getting some help from those with higher paygrades.

They all get lots of help. Bohemian Grove, Bilderburg Group, Carlyle, etc., etc., ad infinitum, including the Old Guard of the party. But HST knew where the buck stopped. And if it does not stop there, we may as well all log off and either start a revolution or take up gardening.

[Tweedy]

68. The art of politics is the possible

I experienced an Election Day and night similar to yours. Yet, I have been pleased for the most part. On election night, I warned everyone to remember the status quo was well entrenched and we were in economic free fall. I never would have dreamed we would get a health care reform which is better than social security in its first iteration. Gay marriage in 38 states did not seem possible. The end of crack/cocaine disparities seemed extremely unlikely. The major investments we have made in our future, in research, solar and wind, too astound me. We are now even discussing police abuses in civil forfeiture! I started this thing very pessimistic though. I've seen precious little progress, or problem fixing in my lifetime.

I did think we would finally reform our broken immigration system and close Guantanamo. I underestimated the demagoguery on the right.

The senate matters. The house matters. Local school board and judicial races matter. Vote!

[merrily]

69. The art of politics is the possible, but you settle for what is possible

only after exhausting every other avenue. You don't look at what got done and work backwards to conclude that was all that was humanly possible.

(To be clear, I am using "you" generically and not to mean you in particular.)

And no one forced him to make the appointments he made, especially after the 2008 victory, or to self identify as a New Democrat.

Honestly, though, I really don't want to keep having the same kinds of discussions and disagreements about Obama I've been having with his fans (one of whom is my very bestie) for five years. They're moot. He's been a lame duck since election night 2012 and it's highly unlikely he's ever going to run for office again. Time to move on.

[Tweedy]

70. Move on to achieve more

I agree what has been accomplished is here to stay. I disagree the president is a lame duck. The GOP certainly wants him to be. Yet, they have wanted that since Election Day. We have achieved more than I ever thought possible. There is much more to be done. Why stop trying?

[MontyPow]

18. I apply the same standard to our government that I apply to individuals:

If you're not willing to put your boots on the ground the threat is a lie.

[merrily]

41. Then maybe fewer threats should be made, not more useless boots on the ground.

[MontyPow]

51. I don't follow.

The point I am making is that if you're not willing to put your own life on the line, then you don't really believe there is a danger.

[merrily]

53. Belief in danger is not a reason to put boots on the ground.

A very strong and realistic belief that putting boots on the ground can eliminate whatever you perceive as a danger may (or may not) be a reason to kill and cripple Americans and people in other nations. But merely believing some danger exists somewhere is not a reason to put boots on the ground.

We put boots on the ground in Iraq twice before. Did that prove someone had a good faith believe that we were really in danger from Saddam? Or that Saddam was a real threat to us? Now, we've put boots on the ground in Iraq again. What does that prove and will it fix anything?

Btw, danger of what specifically, and to whom? An invasion of the US by ISIS?


As far as holding government to that standard, good luck. Ted Williams left his job twice in to fight in wars government started and his was a job where age and those years really mattered. I don't recall a lot of people in Congress leaving Congress to fight the wars they declared. And, constitutionally, Presidents are probably too old to enlist-assuming any of them would.

[MontyPow]

60. I am failing miserably at expressing myself.

Those who claim something or someone is an existential threat, but are not willing to be part of the fight against their proclaimed threat, are just fearmongering. They don't believe their own rhetoric.

[merrily]

61. Yes, I got that. You are not failing miserably. I am. I am making different points than you did.

That, even if they are not merely fearmongering, even if they completely believe their own rhetoric, that is not enough of a justification for putting boots on the ground. There has to also be, at the very least, a good faith belief that putting boots on the ground will avert the existential threat. And maybe---I'm not 100% clear on this, there also has to be an existential threat to us, not to Kuwait or Assad or whomever. Don't pin me down on that bit, though, I am not sure I am there yet.

Of course, there has to be enough sincere belief in them that they would put their very own two boots on the ground if necessary, but we are unlikely ever to know that.

[MontyPow]

62. It would seem we are on the same page after all.

And while I agree that boots on the ground might not solve what might even be an actual threat somewhere, when people support others supplying the boots, then I think they reveal themselves to be warmongers.

Also, I don't expect to actually move my government in the right direction. I simply won't jump on its bandwagon.

[fadedrose]

20. I didn't like him before you didn't like him nt

[democrank]

45. Panetta is hawking his book, snake oil salesman style.

If he was to throw open his trench coat, I bet we`d see jars of Miracle Kure for sale.

[merrily]

47. That is no surprise, but he is doing that on his own time and dime, not those of the taxpayer.

I objected to the fucker when he got nominated, when it really mattered, as well as objecting to him and other authors, like Gates and Hillary, who wrote book taking shots at the President who nominated them while he is still in office (and they aren't).

[merrily]

50. Lots of scary people out there. Saying no doesn't seem to matter, as another

poster pointed out upthread.

In fact, no one wants even to acknowledge that significant numbers of sane, intelligent people are saying no.

And, when both of the largest political parties tell us we should be saying yes, the polls tend to start saying yes as well, as they are now. Tell most people that they are in imminent danger of dying and taking their families with them unless they say yes, and they tend to say yes, even if whether they say yes or no to a public poll question is pretty much irrelevant in DC.

Johnson was the last Democratic President a lot of Democrats opposed vigorously on the war issue. Some of those Democrats still post here and I saw at least one posting regret about that opposition. Doesn't matter if Johnson or they are right or wrong. We're a go along lot, even on something as heinous and mindless as war, especially now that the necons of all political identifications were smart enough to get the draft abolished.

[Nye Bevan]

52. Seems like he's been listening to Liz Warren

Warren: Destroying ISIS should be 'No. 1 priority'

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on Wednesday said that the Obama administration should make defeating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) its top priority.

"ISIS is growing in strength. It has money, it has organization, it has the capacity to inflict real damage. So when we think about a response we have to think about how to destroy that," Warren told Yahoo's Katie Couric.

Warren agreed that "time is of the essence."

"We need to be working now, full-speed ahead, with other countries, to destroy ISIS. That should be our No. 1 priority," she said in a wide-ranging interview promoting her latest book, A Fighting Chance.

http://thehill.com/policy/international/216559-warren-destroying-isis-should-be-our-no-1-priority

[merrily]

55. Or almost anyone in or out of DC who supports war and/or Obama.

As if former Republican, former Nixonite and former Secretary of Defense Panetta had to listen to anyone to be "strong on defense."

[MannyGoldstein]

56. Strange... I thought she was one of the few

who voted against what Panetta wants, arming Syriam "rebels".

[Enthusiast]

57. Leon Panetta, "Cut entitlements, not the military!"

This was a response to sequestration. As if we don't way overspend on the military anyway.

Spending should be in accordance with the actual threat. Since the US has 10 fucking operational aircraft carriers and the rest of the world has no operational aircraft carriers we can deduce that we over estimate the threat by around ten to one.

But let's throw the elderly and disabled out on the street because some wealthy fuck wants a new mansion in some exotic locale.

Fuck an ass like Panetta that believes bullshit like that.