Leon Panetta; Blames Obama for Iraq
So, now that the Iraq situation has become desperate, the old Obama crew are throwing fingers at each other deflecting the blame. The latest is Leon Panetta, who blames Obama for not listening to him during the negotiations with Iraq over the status of forces agreement. According to CNN;
“Those on our side viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests,” he said in excerpts of the book released by Time Magazine.
Iraqi refugees flock to JordanHe writes that his views were shared by other military commanders in the region and the Joint Chiefs of Staff but he believes that the Commander-in-Chief could have done more.
“Officials there seemed content to endorse an agreement if State and Defense could reach one, but without the President’s active advocacy, al-Maliki was allowed to slip away. The deal never materialized,” writes Panetta.
Yeah, well, where was the criticism at the time of the negotiations failure? Why didn’t he call out the administration and their failures at the time to change the course of history instead of waiting until now and look like a whiny little girl? In Time, Panetta writes;
My fear, as I voiced to the President and others, was that if the country split apart or slid back into the violence that we’d seen in the years immediately following the U.S. invasion, it could become a new haven for terrorists to plot attacks against the U.S. Iraq’s stability was not only in Iraq’s interest but also in ours. I privately and publicly advocated for a residual force that could provide training and security for Iraq’s military.
I opposed Panetta’s occupation of that office because I knew he wouldn’t do the job that needed to be done, he’d be a good little soldier for Obama. But, now he’s being a good little soldier for Hillary Clinton. Now American soldiers face greater danger than they would have if they had remained in Iraq in sufficient numbers. Now they’re in Iraq to save the reputation of the cowards, like Panetta who couldn’t summon the courage to make decisions when it could have made a difference.
Now, Panetta and Gates look like 12-year-old girls on Facebook.
Category: Politics
Is it possible to OD on schadenfreude? I might be close. Anyway the hell with Panetta-he might have spoken out at the time (or resigned) if he had the best interests of the nation at heart.
Actions, not words.
First was Ex-Secretary Hildebeast McCankles, now Panetta, I wonder who will be next to try and paddle away from B. Hussein 0bama & Company? They’re like ships deserting a sinking rat, I hope this is a sign of things to come!!
Fuck this guy sideways with a pineapple. Pussy motherfucker didn’t say shit when it could have made a difference. God knows that if the situation in Iraq would have been stable, this piece of shit would have been out front bragging about how their skill and negotiations were the keys to victory. Now that it’s all falling apart, they’re all pointing fingers at each other. What was that about failure being an orphan, but success has a thousand fathers? Yeah, fuck this guy, fuck Gates, fuck Hildebeast, fuck Chuckie, fuck Lurch, fuck Shotgun Joe, hell Fuck ‘Em All!
“Now American soldiers face greater danger than they would have if they had remained in Iraq in sufficient numbers.”
Jonn…and that American blood will also be on Obama’s hands. He can’t wash it off any more than Pilate’s vain attempt to do the same. The God he chooses to believe in, he will meet someday, and give account.
I wish I could be present for that. Something tells me that “Sky 6” won’t buy any of his lame ass excuses!
t’s always amazing how vocal these guys are once they retire. Nobody is willing to have the courage of their convictions and grow a set of balls when they’re serving or in office. Remember the old value of CANDOR? Candor is valued…..except when it’s not!
Just like the current batch of FOX “military analysts”; retired 0-9s, not one of them had the balls to speak up. Marty Dempsey will be the next spineless “expert” to shoot over his shoulder as he is riding out of dodge?
At the risk of getting dog piled, I’d say if you made a recommendation and the CO said “thanks for the input” but did it his way anyway, then what’re you going to do? If Secretaries Gates and Pannetta actually did advise against a COA and the CINC decided otherwise why do they have to fall on their sword? We’ve all been in that situation before, and as a good NCO / officer made our objections known but then carried out the commander’s orders to the best of our ability. The blame for this failed policy lies at the feet of the people who drafted and implemented it (President and staff). I guess my beef with the former NSC people making a dust up now is they are saying anything at all, after the fact. They should just STFU and stay out of the spotlight. They made a recommendation, it wasn’t implemented, they took part in implementing something else that didn’t work so don’t waste my time now with what you thought should have been done. Hindsight is always 20/20, but calling for any old head (not a specific head) on a pike doesn’t address the leadership fail at the correct level. OK, dog pile!
W2: in general, I agree with you – as my article later today indicates. I have one minor exception.
When the individual who didn’t take your recommendation later lies through his teeth about what he did and why, I have no issue with someone who was there and knows the truth raising the BS flag. The current Administration has been claiming “we wanted to leave troops in Iraq, but the govt of Iraq wouldn’t let us” ever since the ISIL crisis began. Panetta (and several others) are IMO merely coming forward and setting the record straight on that point.
It would have been better had they gone public about the issue at the time after resigning in protest. But better late than never.
I hear you. It’s a bitter pill to be on the losing end of a bad policy you had to implement. A lot of us have been in that situation and you feel like a real jerk. I guess I would like this more if they just said something like “I disagreed with the President and his staff and made my disagreement know, but at the end of the day the President is my senior and I am duty bound to implement his policies to the best of my ability”. Being a junior and placing blame when a policy you supported goes south is just chicken shit in my opinion. STFU and lick your own wounds Mr. Secretary.
As I said in the other thread, if you believe that your superior is wrong, RESIGN! This isn’t a Squad Leader disagreeing with an order regarding PT belt wear put out by the CSM. These are high stakes involving grave consequences. Hell, I’ve quit civilian jobs when I felt that policies and procedures could endanger others. So yeah, this guy is a shit pickle.
Was the order illegal? No. Did anybody have a 100% accurate magic eight ball that predicted things would turn to shit? No. Would we be having this conversation if things had not turned to shit? No. The simple fact that they did turn to shit, and these guys supported and implemented the policy that turned to shit, should be enough for them to STFU and sit in the corner. The fact that they are now coming out against this failed policy is disingenuous and cowardly. That’s what I am trying to say here.
You are correct that the decision was legal, and indeed it was within the POTUS’ prerogative to make exactly that decision. The POTUS opted to act against the advice of those in the Defense and Intel communities who knew better – but he is the POTUS.
It appears Panetta did not support the option selected, and in fact warned against it. He did, however, “shut up, salute, and execute” once the decision was made. His other option would have been to resign.
I suspect Panetta would have kept his mouth shut if the POTUS and others involved in making that decision simply owned up to the fact they blew it. Since they’re now IMO lying through their teeth to deflect blame, I won’t blame Panetta for coming forward and saying, “Um, don’t lump me in with that group of fools. I told them that was a mistake. They didn’t listen.”
While he was SECDEF, Panetta owed the POTUS his professional loyalty. In this context, that meant not publicly disagreeing with established national policy – even if he disagreed. He is no longer is SECDEF, and thus no longer owes the POTUS his silence.
Just once…
Just ONE TIME in my life, before I shuffle off this mortal coil….just ONCE, I would like to see a rat go down with the ship, along with the Mr and Mrs Howell, Ginger, the Professor, Maryann, the Skipper AND Gilligan.
Can’t we at least agree to spare Ginger and Mary Ann?
Not willing to give any of them a pass on what they should have done instead of what they did when given opportunities for greatness. Well, that and simply doing their jobs.
That said, it is important to keep in mind that just because we didn’t hear about it doesn’t mean an event did not occur. The media decides what to report and when even when they are informed of events. We have seen repeatedly that the media reports what this administration directs them to report rather than measuring newsworthiness against some standard which exists no matter who is in power.
All to say, basing whether someone did or did not do their jobs on what is reported publicly is nearly guaranteed an erroneous conclusion these days. Am I justifying what Panetta and others did or did not do? Absolutely not simply because I have no idea what they did or did not do.
We only know that collectively what they did was very wrong. We knew that at the time. Ultimately, no matter how much he knew, when he knew it, and how directly he was involved in the final decisions, responsibility lies squarely on the desk in the oval office.
So, on that point I must agree with Panetta even if he acted cowardly then or takes a painful, self-serving route to get there.
Bill O’Reilly had long 40 min interview with Leon Panetta last night. Panetta was doing his best to be diplomatic in his responses to Pres Obama’s performance, but the shifting body language, halting tone, and long pauses was pretty damning of the POTUS. Yeah, sure probably some CYA, but Panetta is no low level flunkie. He probably has a little bit of experience on recognizing who can or can’t cut it at highest level of responsibility in gov’t. Overall, a good tough probing interview.