Might as well throw these up too
Hey, would love to read what you have posted but I have to tell you that is a real strain on my eyes. But, I’ve already given you my response above.
One final thought, if he is covering for Hillary in the above pages that is no surprise to me as he owes her.
Essentially it is Panetta sticking up for Panetta…Okay, if you are a Panetta fan you will buy it, I’m not.
Thanks for posting the articles. If it is possible to enlarge them please do so.
Thanks,
Zeb
Edit
It’s pages 450 and 428-432 in worthy fight I can’t enlarge them.
Then I can’t read them
The man loves Hillary and he should the Clintons made his career.
“She is somebody that I’ve seen who’s dedicated to this country. She’s smart, she’s experienced, and she’s tough. What the hell else do you want?” Panetta said, when asked why Clinton should be president."
She’s corrupt…she’s under investigation …Lol. He left that part out.
Has literally zero to do with whether forces could have reached Benghazi in time to help.
Edit: those comments are prior to the email scandal I believe.
1 Like
You could read this page, but not the others, curious…
He criticises Bill in the book for the Monica incident. He is completely at odds with HRC regarding her healthcare imitative while first lady.
You should read the book. He doesn’t owe the Clinton’s for making him.
Edit: wrong link.
1 Like
Double click on the images, They are approximately 3000x5300 pixels.
They expand quite nicely
Heh. My public library doesn’t have it, predictably. And it’s out of print. It’s probably on about ten bookshelves, which would be about nine more than “Unintended Consequences”.
But I am sure it marshals lots of empirical evidence to refute the findings of the government. Oh look, it’s available for free as an ebook. I’ll download it.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ohhhhh…I get it. As long as rape and murder were ostensibly not premeditated we can print and issue the rape/murder licenses. Gotcha.[/quote]
No, the point is that Sherman did not engage in state-sanctioned weaponization of rape as a tactic to stop soldiers. There was no license to rape (or commit attacks on people outside of engaging in combat) at any level.
Trump doesn’t advocate rape (I don’t think, but someone should ask him), but clearly is advocating going after non-combatants as leverage against terrorists. And as result, he disqualifies himself to be president.
Or rather he should. No serious president should be able speak like that and rouse that kind of nonsense and encourage that kind of license, even if we assume he won’t actually go through with it. It’s pure demagoguery. It’s disgusting and beneath the office of the presidency, but most important, it’s harmful to our national security.
But, far too many GOP ignoramuses who are letting him get away with it.
[quote=“anon50325502, post:1911, topic:212571”]
You could read this page, but not the others, curious…[/quote]
Yes I did read the first page but it was very difficult. Between the computer that I have and my eyes I was just not willing to try anymore pages with such small writing as an intense headache would ensue… You needn’t be curious just wait 20 or 30 years and you will know what I mean.
Yes, as I recall back in the day pretty much everyone in the country criticized Bill for the Monica Lewinsky affair. That’s not a stretch and in fact expected. Who would condone such obviously bad behavior?
Policy difference only but I will give him credit if it is as you say.
But, again regarding Benghazi Panetta was certainly not going to allow Hillary to take a fall. Unlike a mere difference on policy this would be a career ender for her (and still might be Panetta or not). Also, as Secretary of Defense he also had a dog in the fight and didn’t want to look bad.
We will just have to disagree on this one.
Committing perjury would look pretty bad too.
He also fully admits and takes responsibility for the CIA’s failure to prevent the attack at Camp Chapman in Khost, Afghanistan that resulted in the death of 25 people. I seriously doubt he would do the opposite as it relates to Benghazi.
You can also see on page 440 Panetta quotes Buck McKeon, The House Armed Services chairman (a Republican), as saying, “I think I’ve pretty well been satisfied that given where the troops were, how quickly the thing all happened and how quickly it dissipate, we probably couldn’t have done more than we did.”
Not at all incongruent usmccds. You see before Bill Clinton was exposed regarding the Lewinsky affair he first lied about it under oath which is why he was impeached. No one that I recall even staunch democrats were happy about Clinton’s behavior. IT was roundly chastised by all. If Panetta were to try to defend such actions he would have been laughed off the public stage.
My point is that it was more or less a pile on from both parties. With the democrats stating that yes he was wrong but should not have to be impeached for it. The republicans of course taking the other side that not only was he wrong he lied under oath about it and should be impeached and removed from office.
In other words, there was no one claiming that Bill Clintons affair with Monica Lewinsky was a good thing, or something that should have taken place… The defense that he had and why he was not removed from office was what he lied about (sex), not if he was right or wrong.
Panetta would have looked like a virtual lunatic if he said anything to defend those actions.
I hope this further clarifies my position on that incident.
His Benghazi remarks were meant primarily to protect Hillary. But, as I have said he looked better too.
Zeb: “I doubt you will find much where he is attacking, or even question the Clintons in a major way.”
Usmc: he questioned the Presidents judgement over the Lewinsky affair.
Zeb: Well that’s different.
Usmc: scratches head, okay…
How about this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/interviews/panetta2.html
So on and so forth…