The Panetta interview with Bill O’Reilly
I watched most of the Panetta interview on the O’Reilly show last night. Panetta tried to pull his punches in the sense that he kept offering tepid excuses for Obama that didn’t sound as though even he was convinced of their veracity. But much of what he said was a condemnation of the president he’d worked for—his judgment, and his personality.
Panetta actually seemed sincerely frightened or at least concerned about the situation, and I’ve seen quite a few other people around the blogosphere state the same impression of his demeanor. Of course, if he’d been that concerned, why didn’t he resign in protest back when the whole thing was happening, when his quitting might have actually done some good?
You can judge for yourself; here’s the full interview:
And this piece by David Ignatius is—unintentionally—funny. Ignatius says a “talent infusion” may be in the works for the Obama administration in its last two years. Ha! Even if that were true, it would merely be replacing one person Obama doesn’t listen to with another person he doesn’t listen to.
Unless it were Valerie Jarrett being replaced. And it won’t be.
[NOTE: Now none other than Jimmy Carter has joined the pile on.]
[ADDENDUM: Panetta also said he knew immediately that Benghazi was a terrorist attack. His reasoning was the common sense one given by a lot of people on the right: the weaponry used (see, for example, my first “Addendum” to this post written on September 12, 2012.)]
Spot on.
Jarrett is the real President.
Sad & pathetic that the Man learned nothing in his 6 years as President, but then when you think you are
*perfect* how can you possibly be improved.
I saw the whole Panetta interview. As usual, I thought O’Reilly was more interested in good, political theater than effective debate and his line of questioning with Mr. Panetta was not as intelligent as it could have been. But, Bill O’Reilly has great ratings, and I think that’s his main motivation. I do agree with your assessment of Leon Panetta’s attitude about his most recent boss. O’Reilly’s request for a comparison of Barack Obama to Bill Clinton was a very good question.
However, the opening segment with the Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Ben Affleck clip from Bill Maher’s show was some of the best television I have seen regarding current events. Although I had some minor disagreements with Bill O’Reilly’s word choices and a few of his statements; it was one of the best summaries of what is wrong with Islam I have seen on television. The fact that Mr. O’Reilly did it on such a popular program is one of the most courageous things I’ve seen by a major, television personality. And, watching Ben Affleck’s reaction to the irrefutable facts laid before him was truly fascinating. It was a near perfect encapsulation of how an intelligent person can allow ideology to affect his sense of reason.
I recommend that segment to anyone interested in human behavior.
Talent infusion. Wow.
I thought Obama already was Talent-squared.
Even so, talent for what? What sort of talent? The talent to continue to destroy? The talent ti turn around the destruction? The talent for coercions? For marketing? For what, what, what?
I know America is nearly dead and here is how I know. For two hundred and thirty years, such basic questions would have been asked and we would not have stopped until they were answered. The truth would be mined and eventually exposed.
Now deceit itself is the program. The last thing we want is the truth or the good, and we need “talent” to avoid it at all costs.
Plain-speaking has died and is buried.
It will take a Zombie Apocalypse itself to resurrect it.
“Of course, if he’d been that concerned, why didn’t he resign in protest back when the whole thing was happening, when his quitting might have actually done some good?”
Political concerns superseded any other consideration, including his oath of office. This is about loyalty to the Clintons as regards Hillary, not dismay at Obama’s fecklessness.
Obama wasn’t there to learn. He is the prop, the people putting him into office (Soros, Ayres, unnamed benefactors), the public voted in. I’m convinced that the people behind Obama were surprised that he was able to be elected the first time. I think they are also surprised at all they have been able to get away with. But the microphone in the hands of a deceived media is a powerful thing, along with our tribe discussion from the other day. Everything George Bush was ever accused of being and doing, this President is and does. National “projection” brought on by Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Rufus,
“Bill O’Reilly has great ratings, and I think that’s his main motivation.”
While that may well be true, your remarks imply a dismissive attitude. I know you compliment O’Reilly shortly thereafter but consider the importance of high ratings.
It’s a matter of not letting the perfect (interview) be the enemy of the good. Any O’Reilly imperfection notwithstanding, What this interview did was to get Panetta’s criticism in front of a larger number of viewers of many persuasions than would have been possible in almost any other way.
I have gone on record here writing that this must be part of our job as conservatives; i.e., to get the word out. No one really knows how much influence this interview could have even in the upcoming midterms, but if we don’t get the word out, we know it will have no influence at all.
T: “I have gone on record here writing that this must be part of our job as conservatives; i.e., to get the word out.”
And do so competitively.
once the fool knave thing meant no one would act until there was a sign pointing down, saying exactly what it was… and even then not act cause they would argue about the sign… we got economics, military, and so on…
here is a bit more to add to panetta
Rep Duncan Hunter (R-CA) sounded the alarm on Greta Van Susteren’s show last night:
Hand grenades becoming key weapon in Mexican cartels’ arsenals, say authorities
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/16/hand-grenades-becoming-key-weapon-in-mexican-cartels-arsenals-say-authorities/
Count me as one who thinks that Panetta’s “damning with faint praise” of Obama is way too little and way too late.
Had he resigned as SecDef or head of the CIA and, at that time–years ago–told all the world about his reservations and observations, it might have been of some use but, now, he’s just the bottom guy in the growing pigpile.
why didn’t he resign in protest back when the whole thing was happening, when his quitting might have actually done some good?
cause quitting would not have done any good given the electorate that dominates, and how nothing else from denuement of the military leaders, unilateral disarming, moral breaking in the military, economic malaise, desases being used from africa to south american sources, open borders, isis, and more…
none of that was prickly enough to get the leftists to wake up… panetta quiting would have just been something to celebrate by them, not go hmmmmm…
why didn’t he resign in protest back when the whole thing was happening, when his quitting might have actually done some good?
cause quitting would not have done any good given the electorate that dominates, and how nothing else from denuement of the military leaders, unilateral disarming, moral breaking in the military, economic malaise, desases being used from africa to south american sources, open borders, isis, and more…
none of that was prickly enough to get the leftists to wake up… panetta quiting would have just been something to celebrate by them not wake up and say “he left, must be a reason”
my email was blocked again..
T,
I agree. I often get frustrated by Bill O’Reilly, and I think that’s part of the show’s design. If you have enough decent fact you can lure a lot of Conservatives in, and if you add bombast you can lure in folks who like to watch train wrecks and Michael Bay movies. You’re probably right, it’s better to have someone like him peppering his show with some conservatism and constitutionalism, than having someone like William F. Buckley hosting “Firing Line.” The latter simply preaches to the converted.
Frankly, I wouldn’t expect any member of O’s administration to resign or speak out – especially just before a presidential election.
I blame a complacent electorate willing to buy into any sort of non-sense. It was obvious to any thinking person that this so-called “demonstration” on 9/11 was a serious military attack on our embassy by anti-American Islamic forces.
Horrifically shameful behavior, all around.
Where has my country gone?
Neo-neocon and Geoffrey Britain,
The brilliant Jeff Baxter was recently on “Red Eye.” He discussed one a quote he had heard at a meeting involving many of the top security appointees in the U.S. Government. The speaker chided the audience with, “All of you here are willing to lay down your life for your government, but how many of you are willing to lay down your careers?”
That’s your answer to why Leon Panetta didn’t speak up sooner.
Rufus,
That Jeff Baxter quote cuts right to the quick!
Thanks for bringing that to our attention.
Panetta may want to be on board if HRC becomes POTUS, but I do think the concerns he has voiced are sincere. The question remains: why didn’t you resign, especially after Benghazi?
Yeah, that Ignatius article was pretty bad.
“assembling his famous “team of rivals” — strong, independent personalities such as Panetta, Robert Gates and Hillary Clinton”
That’s just wrong. Panetta was never a rival, and Gates was inherited. The “rivals” included names like Clinton, Richardson, and Daschle.
Ponerology vs Soteriology
He’s a purely political animal, a one-time Republican so establishment that he switched to Democrat, but even he’s appalled by Obama. That’s scary.
For decades, the political establishment has been unanimously focused on squelching the “extremist” Tea Party and its antecedent forces that would restrain the power, scope, role, and growth of the government. Now a new threat emerges, from an unexpected quarter. Nevermind the people, big government is now threatening the political establishment. OMG!
It is becoming clear that Panetta and HRC were simply helpless pawns on Obama’s game table. They were powerless; ergo they are responsible for nothing.
Since they were so inconsequential in what should have been powerful positions, do you suppose they will refund their salaries, and at least in Panetta’s case, reimburse the government for the dozens of personal transcontinental trips in USAF VIP transport planes? I jest.
Now, after 2012; now that it can do no good for anyone but themselves–read book sales, and in one case the 2016 election–their consciences require that they speak.
Pshaw!
Rufus T. Firefly touches an eternal truth. Maybe it has something to do with an innate human faith in personal immortality that motivates people to risk their lives before risking their careers. Or maybe it is just that society reveres one type of sacrifice, and shrugs at the other.
O’Reilly serves a purpose. Other than promoting O’Reilly I mean. His Dennis Miller and Watter’s World segments are entertaining and frequently informative; you can always mute the sound when he goes into bombast mode.
Ignatius says a “talent infusion” may be in the works for the Obama administration in its last two years. Ha!
Ha,! indeed. Anyone remember Halberstram’s “best and brightest?” Standard liberal narrative. Talk of a “talent infusion” reminds me of the 2008 Xmas letter I received which talked about Obama’s “vast intelligence” and about “a cadre of the best around him.” We all know how THAT worked out.
Coincidentally, part of the “cadre of the best around” Obama was the brightest person in my high school class. He was bright enough to see how things were going, and bailed out.
But there is NO need for a “talent infusion” into the White House, when the POTUS is a better speechwriter than his own speechwriters, and a better analyst of foreign policy than anyone at State, the CIA, the think tanks or the universities.
Let Obama be Obama! That is the solution! 🙂
Speaking of gripping television: I went to the TV menu to watch a DVR’ed, “Red Eye” and the wife had left it on a DVR’ed, “Dancing with the Stars” and it started playing. It was the guy who played the other guy (not Will Smith) on, “The Fresh Prince of Bel Air.” I ended up watching his whole dance, rewinding it and watching it two more times! My goodness was it fun!!
Check it out, check it out’ers!
(looks like the code tag doesn’t work here in the comments, try this link…)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAiQBU2WxZQ
Because like every other DC politician, Panetta only thinks of what is best for Panetta.
I watched it last night and couldn’t decide if Leon was afraid to come out and call Obama a dithering idiot because he was afraid the next question was what you asked – ” Why didn’t you quit?” Or if he was afraid the IRS and the NSA would take a sudden interest in him.
Oldflyer,
The Dennis Miller segments are wonderful. God bless, Dennis Miller!
My wife and I also joke about how Bill clothes the women who appear with him on set. The striking hair colors (either very blonde or very brunette) and the primary colored dresses; almost always blue or red, and either matching or opposite when two appear with Bill in the same segment.
Recently a new channel has showed up on our television, One America News Network. There is a guy who does a show that mimicks O’Reilly’s right down to the set, segments and logos and their position on screen to identify the segments. It’s fascinating!
Oh yes, yellow dresses are also often featured.
southpaw,
My interpretation was Panetta did call Obama a ditherer but does not believe he is an idiot.
In regards to Jimmy Carter:
That is like being called a “pussy” by Sir Robin The Brave.
For those of you too young to remember, the Carter presidency was monumentally bad – and he accomplished that feat in only four years. That takes a special genius. Anyway, my point is that things looked like they were swirling down the crapper for the whole country at that point, in many ways worse than today, but Ronald Reagan proved it is possible to pull things back from the brink. So, don’t give up yet – although I do admit it’s hard to see where the next Reagan is going to come from. But the Carter years were bad, bad, bad. Although, in his partial defense, he did seem to acquire some semblance of a spine near the end when the Soviet Union shocked him by invading Afghanistan without so much as a how-do-you-do. That apparently opened his eyes. It was kind of like that Ukraine thing but with a president who decided to at least try to learn from his mistakes.
So this is why Bill O’Reilly made sure to butter up the Hussein Regime with soft interviews years ago.
The follow up on his connections paid out, as usual.
The nation burns, and the talking heads think they are succeeding. Think there’s something wrong with that picture?
but Ronald Reagan proved it is possible to pull things back from the brink. So, don’t give up yet — although I do admit it’s hard to see where the next Reagan is going to come from.
Margaret Thatcher, remember her?
People like Reagan cannot fix the US that was broken by generations of mad emperors and citizens.
The idea that his is the solution, sacrifice every few generations a “leader” with virtue, isn’t going to be sustainable. Besides, Sarah Palin was already there and the American people preferred Hussein as the messiah. So the US gets what people deserve. They no longer deserve real leadership, cause most of them don’t want it.
Peter Hitchens makes the case that the triumvirate of Thatcher, Reagan and Pope John Paul II ultimately lost the battle because once the Soviet Union was essentially dissolved our western countries have seen socialism rise in unexpected and unprecedented manifestations. It is as though is flowed out of those countries in into our own.
kcom, 6:52 pm —
With due respect,
-1- I personally fail to see how, in what ways, the pre-Reagan USA circa 1980 was “in many ways worse [off?] than today.” Your mileage, of ocurse, may vary.
-2- You write, “I do admit it’s hard to see where the next Reagan is going to come from.”
-2a- I think it’s foolish to look for a “next Reagan”, but I also imagine you’re writing metaphorically: i.e., where’s the next genuine popular right-oriented leader going to come from.
-2b- The 1980 demographics and zeitgeist are much different as compared with 2016. There are far more USA-haters, illegal as well as legal (but both get to vote), and the zeitgeist itself (the prevailing mainstream culture; compare 1980 Hollywood to 2016 Hollywood, for example) has shifted markedly leftward.
Looks like Ymarsakar (7:55 pm) said it better than did I!
M J R, I mostly don’t disagree with what you said. Well, I’m not sure I disagree with anything you said, per se. It’s true the country is different now than in 1980 and that is my biggest worry. Ultimately, we are going to get the government we earn (not deserve) and too many people seem to have given up on the idea of believing in America the old-fashioned way and earning that sort of government. But, I still say that that specific era, the late ’70s, looked pretty bleak at the time, too. It was psychological torture in many ways living through Jimmy Carter’s feckless presidency. I still get the willies thinking about it, he was so far in over his head.
1 – the economy sucked, inflation was astronomical, interest rates were astronomical, the gas/energy crisis was ongoing, the hangover from Vietnam was still huge, we had a spineless president who didn’t know what the hell he was doing, the Iranians took our diplomats hostage and rubbed our nose in it for months, the Soviet Union was on the move, the Cubans were metastasizing through Central America and Africa, the military was atrophying, etc. etc.
2 – Yes, I was speaking metaphorically. Reagan wasn’t “Reagan” until he became president and proved he could handle the job. According to the press at the time, he was a doddering old man who never should have been elected. Or he was an evil warmonger. Take your pick. (Hey, it’s the old fool vs. knave argument.)
I would close with the point that elections don’t always just reflect the electorate (or the apparent electorate). Sometimes they shape the electorate. When Reagan won 49 states (I think, in 1984) it wasn’t because Republicans were a majority in every state at that point. It’s that people wanted what he was selling no matter their party affiliation. The same thing with Rudolph Giuliani in New York City. NYC didn’t suddenly turn Republican but they did vote for a Republican who was selling something better than they had.
As for Jimmy Carter chiming in, while I think his criticisms are correct, this is IMO nothing more than a stopped clock moment (even those are correct twice a day).
Carter had the most disastrous presidency in modern history until Obama appeared on the scene and he has spent the last thirty-four years anemically attempting to establish a legacy independent of his failed administration. IMO Carter’s criticisms, although correct carry no weight.
It doesn’t matter what the ignorant fools thought the economy or military situation was up to during Carter. They’re the ones that voted the sucker in.
I determine what the situation is from my own sources. Relying on a bunch of Carter voters isn’t going to cut it, when assessing the current situation. Same applies for relying on Carter himself to assess the situation.
The idea that every fool and his sheep thinks the same now as they did back when they voted for Carter, doesn’t really matter that much. The sheep will believe whatever the hell they are told to believe, and that is completely independent of what’s really going on.
Btw, whether a people or culture deserves their leaders isn’t about who voted for whom. It’s about what the general culture thinks of the virtues or vices of said leaders. When Americans think good is evil and evil good, it really doesn’t matter if they are voting for Palin or not at the point. It’s way too late.
What Panetta does and says is for the benefit of the party. It’s Kabuki theater. Obama likely is not even taken aback. He’s played his role and he figures the left will write the history. Don’t worry, be happy. Fore and Forward for the rest of his life.
Leon Panetta’s Communist Ties
http://www.rightwingnews.com/democrats/leon-panettas-communist-ties/
The Middle East was a center of attention for Carter during his presidency, from Iran, to Israel, to Afghanistan, and he was hawkish in policy about countering Soviet influence there.
Later yes, earlier no, if I recall correctly. (But I could be misremembering.)
kcom, 9:12 pm —
(Only now back at the ol’ laptop.)
You and I are not quite on the same page, but we’re in the same chapter. Good enough! Welcome aboard (I’m not sure I’ve seen your posts here much before).
Regarding another Reagan, two things:
1. Thinking a strong, federal head of government can solve our political woes is a big part of what has gotten us into this mess. Our political system was configured for the strength to be local, with the federal level restricted to 14, explicitly enumerated (and limited) powers.
2. As great as Reagan was, Federal government still grew under his administration. I doubt we’ll see a Conservative leader with his abilities any time soon, but remember, even if we had a second coming of Reagan he would be unable to change our course. Without a citizenry motivated to take back their rights at a local and state level all a President can do is slow the rate of expansion.
“Without a citizenry motivated to take back their rights at a local and state level all a President can do is slow the rate of expansion.”
Yeah, that’s the heart of the problem. Too many people go along with the mindset that the federal government is the answer for everything.
“You and I are not quite on the same page, but we’re in the same chapter. Good enough! Welcome aboard (I’m not sure I’ve seen your posts here much before).”
I’ve been reading and posting here for ten years but lately it’s been more off than on – as far as the posting. I still read every day.
Panetta, Clinton and Obama knew immediately that Benghazi was a terrorist attack.
Yet, they threw an innocent man in prison, blaming the attack on his video to cover their incompetence and lies.
If Clinton runs the Republicans should point this out again and again, but first they would have to grow a spine. They should replace the elephant with a jellyfish for the national mascot.
And here, I thought a Rhino would’ve been the selection.
kcom, 10:20 am —
“I’ve been reading and posting here for ten years . . .”
. . . in which case I am *very* embarassed (and I apologize).
“but lately it’s been more off than on — as far as the posting.”
In that case, then, I am only embarassed
[as distinguished from “*very* embarassed”].
“I still read every day.”
Yes; neo’s blog is *must*-reading! Havagood . . .