Leon Panetta's Revelations and the Crickets on this board.

[Captain Wiggles]

I thought it even more hilarious when Jimmy Carter was calling Obama out which really does take alot for him to throw in his 2c.

 

The way things are going over there lately though who knows how similar their presidencies will end and Obama could end up single handedly getting a very conservative republican in office just like Carter did.

 

I'll take a wild guess and bet your part of the crowd that claim Carter and Obama are two of the worst Presidents in U.S. history?

[Special K]

Got the book on Tuesday (what was life like before Amazon???) and am about halfway through it.  I've read Gates' book as well and Panetta certainly hits harder on the Obama administration than Gates did, and Gates was pretty critical at times. 

 

Themes I've noticed in both books:

- Both have been critical of President Obama's inexperience and grasp, or lack thereof, on foreign policy issues.  Which I think even his most ardent supporters are recognizing by now, especially since this is the 3rd top ranking foreign policy official to publish a memoir speaking negatively about a sitting president...

 

- While both point out Obama's inexperience, they point damning fingers at Obama's inner circle who insulate the president from opposing views and whose advice on foreign policy is driven almost exclusively by poll numbers and political strategy.

 

I'll try to post some more once I've finished the book.  

[Burgold]

I've actually noticed that fewer issues than ever get discussed in Tailgate.  Look at the main topics of the day and a lot of them are no longer brought up.  There used to be a lot more news chatter.  So, I don't think what you're discovering is a liberal bias to bury news as much as a shift in Tailgate culture.

 

Then again, maybe we're still discussing everything, but all the big events get stuffed into one mega thread or another and therefore I miss it not realizing that that's where the topic lives.

[skinsmarydu]

As a pinko commie socialist card carrying member of the ACLU I agree a 100%. But the country throughout it's history seems to have been fairly centrist so I can live with that. I always just laugh it off when Obama's called a socialist, then think to myself "wish he was"...

You know, true socialism was explained to me by a former co-worker that grew up in Ibiza, Spain...the POTUS isn't even remotely close. Over here, we won't do socialist things that help every citizen, like making sure everyone pays the same amount for water, natural gas, electricity, etc. no matter where they live. I know there would be backlash if such a policy were enacted, I just can't figure out why.

Are we all not equal under the law? Why is electrical power more expensive in certain states/cities/rural back roads?

Commerce & competition...which should keep prices in check, but it doesn't work that way here. FAIR capitalism is something we'll never see. Greed took over, and the CEOs know we have to pay whatever they want for basic services.

/rant

[MEANDWARF]

I learned a long time ago to avoid stepping on fire-ant mounts. But I do attempt to offer humorist sarcastic  posts on threads that bash Christian Conservatives. Attempt that is.

[skinsmarydu]

I learned a long time ago to avoid stepping on fire-ant mounts. But I do attempt to offer humorist sarcastic  posts on threads that bash Christian Conservatives. Attempt that is.

So the light side isn't your cup 'o tea? LOL (remembering your invitation that I join the "dark side"...)

[visionary]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/10/09/shake_it_up_obama_administration_foreign_policy

Shake It Up: Obama needs new blood in the White House.

 

History is likely to be much kinder to U.S. President Barack Obama than many of his former colleagues have been. On a wide range of domestic issues, he will win praise much like that already being doled out by Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman in the current issue of Rolling Stone. As Krugman rightly observes, a great number of accomplishments -- including overseeing efforts to bring the economy back from crisis, incomplete but nonetheless meaningful health care and financial services reforms, an extended period of job creation, the potential for real gain on environmental policy, and the good fortune associated with America's energy boom -- will lastingly be associated with this president. That said, it is impossible to overlook the fact that even a cheerleader like Krugman, who is on a dedicated mission to counter conventional wisdom about the beleaguered chief executive, seeks to make his best case by skimming over the issues of national security and foreign policy that are Obama's most glaring and now almost universally acknowledged weaknesses.

Krugman can't have helped but notice that his effort to set the record straight on Obama's domestic achievements has been overshadowed by yet another stinging critique of Obama from one of the most senior members of his own team, that of Leon Panetta, in his new book, Worthy Fights. Or that Panetta's critique comes as part of an unprecedented outpouring of criticism of Obama from recently departed members of his own team. Not since the Nixon era have so many high-level members of a presidential administration taken shots at their ex-boss while he was still in office. Frankly, I'm not sure that the current backlash from former colleagues is not even greater than what Nixon got from ex-administration members.

 

Think of it: Panetta, Robert Gates, and Hillary Clinton, the core of Obama's first-term national security team, have all offered stinging critiques of the president. Other senior officials, like former State Department officials Vali Nasr and Robert Ford, have done likewise. And in public and private settings you will hear other cabinet-level officials and flag officers leveling their own sharp criticisms. And the farther away you get from the White House and the closer you get to Foggy Bottom or the Pentagon, the louder and more pointed the second-guessing and expressions of frustration become.

 

In the wake of the Panetta critiques, the small wagon train of defenders circling the president urged former colleagues not to pile on or support Panetta's message, and whispered about the former CIA director and defense secretary's lack of loyalty. This was much the same technique they used when Gates's book was published. But is it disloyal for these men who have devoted decades to public service and strengthening U.S. national security to offer perspectives that they think might help right the ship and set it on a better course? Or would it be more disloyal to be quiet? Saving their criticisms for after the president left office would not help him at all, would support the illusion that things were functioning better than they were, and would allow past errors to be compounded without challenge.

 

In fact, such criticisms have reached what is very nearly a nonpartisan consensus at the center of which is the growing feeling that major and meaningful change is required within the White House. Krugman, trained as an academic to be intellectually honest, to focus on the facts and admit that the good comes with the bad, should have been able to admit and articulate the idea that Obama could be a pretty good president on domestic policy issues and, thus far, a disappointment on foreign policy. David Ignatius, the widely respected Washington Post columnist and one who has reported fairly on both the ups and the downs of Obama's international policies, acknowledged the degree to which change was needed in a column this week that hinted at the possibility of personnel moves on the national security side at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Saw this on twitter tweeted by another former administration official, Rosa Brooks.

[Elessar78]

I've actually noticed that fewer issues than ever get discussed in Tailgate.  Look at the main topics of the day and a lot of them are no longer brought up.  There used to be a lot more news chatter.  So, I don't think what you're discovering is a liberal bias to bury news as much as a shift in Tailgate culture.

 

Then again, maybe we're still discussing everything, but all the big events get stuffed into one mega thread or another and therefore I miss it not realizing that that's where the topic lives.

Issues evolve from their genesis incident. Adrian Peterson's indicted evolves into the de facto "Child Discipline Thread". Not as much of a stretch, but "Two Ebola Patients . . ."  thread becomes the de facto Ebola thread. I can't think of better examples, but my feeling is that the threads out live the descriptiveness of their titles.

[Fergasun]

So the complaint is that Obama should be more reactive/aggresive re: foreign policy, and what he is doing is "weak"?

But I rather like a domestic focus and more muted American non-interventionist policy...

[MEANDWARF]

So the light side isn't your cup 'o tea? LOL (remembering your invitation that I join the "dark side"...)

skins, I am only over here for the cookies.

[skinsmarydu]

Issues evolve from their genesis incident. Adrian Peterson's indicted evolves into the de facto "Child Discipline Thread". Not as much of a stretch, but "Two Ebola Patients . . ."  thread becomes the de facto Ebola thread. I can't think of better examples, but my feeling is that the threads out live the descriptiveness of their titles.

I think you're right, we're just not starting new threads when there's a similar story to an existing thread, but I also think it keeps us focused on the 'issue' of the thread itself, as opposed to each individual story.

skins, I am only over here for the cookies.

they are delicious, aren't they? especially in the stadium, LOL

[Zguy28]

Heck have you never heard of the I told you so syndrome? We are all susceptible to it and I being no exception. 

Just because one is susceptible to it does mean you should do it.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Honest question, and it really doesn't require an answer unless you feel as if you want to answer, do you view the people who wrote tell all books on the Bush administration in the same light?

[nonniey]

I've actually noticed that fewer issues than ever get discussed in Tailgate.  Look at the main topics of the day and a lot of them are no longer brought up.  There used to be a lot more news chatter.  So, I don't think what you're discovering is a liberal bias to bury news as much as a shift in Tailgate culture.

 

Then again, maybe we're still discussing everything, but all the big events get stuffed into one mega thread or another and therefore I miss it not realizing that that's where the topic lives.

Maybe you're right about this and I guess my point is that fewer and fewer political news story's (unless an off the wall statement form the far left or right usually the latter) are being discussed in this forum.  I'm just pointing out that this is likely due to the left leaning position of this board as most of the major political stories are dealling with the disfunction/incompetence/weakness of the President or his administration.

I'll take a wild guess and bet your part of the crowd that claim Carter and Obama are two of the worst Presidents in U.S. history?

I would say it is more than a crowd that believe that they are among the worst. You are in denial if you think that they will be remembered in posterity any other way.

[JoeWolf990]

Why is conservatives need to be the victim? Always complaining that no their point of view isn't getting enough coverage. Poor you. If you don't see a thread covering what you feel is proof positive of your views, start one.

Now we're talking about it so give us some details, some quotes, and prove your case. (Or at least present it)

Many conservatives like a good whine while also proclaiming themselves as America's tough people.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Many conservatives like a good whine while also proclaiming themselves as America's tough people.

 

 

So are you saying that you prefer your Conservatives to be drunken rather then sober?

 

 

LOL......

[Larry]

Many conservatives like a good whine while also proclaiming themselves as America's tough people.

Well, and part of it is that, since they lost control, the GOP plan to regain power has been to oppose anything and everything, while yelling about nothing being done, and trying hard to convince people that the sky will fall if they don't vote Republican.

[Zguy28]

Many conservatives like a good whine while also proclaiming themselves as America's tough people.

Your right. Its sort of like how liberals like intolerance while also proclaiming themselves as tolerant. But I digress. Now off to lunch, seeing the bacon thread pop up on the front page of the Tailgate has made me want a BLT!

[Jumbo]

I like and respect this poster, for more than one reason. He and sacase (I tend to read them as kindred to one another) are two meaningful voices here IMO. Not simply for their positions on matters, but moreso for what I assess (only via their posting on ES) as the content of their character. 

 

non,  the discomfort you feel re: this forum's liberal leanings as you posit it, is a regular theme with you and a couple others. It's understandable. "Forum leaning" here has been addressed numerous times, of course, and in varying fashion (including it's shifts over time), as well as just the basic "durrs"  like  "well, where is there any actual '50-50' board" (or close?) and the always-popular (and relevant) "if the lean was to the conservative <or "other side"> would you be as uncomfortable about that imbalance?"

 

Rather than repeat those too-oft repeated angles, and given I'm really unmoved by any suggestion (not being made here) that this forum's constituency or management limits anything reasonable in expression, topically, let me state this:

 

If someone wants to beat the drum of the "right/left bias in you guys!!!", make the thread title just that---better yet, actually search and find one among the many threads that have already and bump one. 

 

Don't post an article as a vehicle to talk about board bias via planting a trolling-type comment in the title, regardless of whether that was an incidental or primary matter in your mind.

 

I'm not assuming you had no interest in the article topic--i assume you do want to actually discuss the article, but this is basically building-in your own derail, or, alternatively, will give many readers the impression that what you really want to do is gripe about how the forum isn't conservative as you'd like it to be and that bothers you (and others, of course, as would the inverse). 

 

Hell, I wish that what bothered me about a lot of people (and being a generous soul, that's how think of most posters--as "people"  ) was restricted to whether they were left or right in their political bias. 

 

Given a number of my past posts feature primates, it might not surprise people that I mischievously like the idea in another current thread where chimps get human rights. I often see very little diff between us and them. 

 

 

 

 

Carry on (maybe even focusing on the article content). 

[s0crates]

Your right. Its sort of like how liberals like intolerance while also proclaiming themselves as tolerant. But I digress. Now off to lunch, seeing the bacon thread pop up on the front page of the Tailgate has made me want a BLT!

There is any interesting question about the concept of tolerance: does tolerance require that I tolerate intolerance?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Just find it interesting that nothing is being mentioned on this board about the damning revelations from Panetta of the President that has been all over the news this week.

 

The board does need more arguing over politics in general.  Thanks!

Your right. Its sort of like how liberals like intolerance while also proclaiming themselves as tolerant. But I digress. Now off to lunch, seeing the bacon thread pop up on the front page of the Tailgate has made me want a BLT!

 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I think this is going to be a general trend of foreign policy going forward. We are not in a NATO/Warsaw Pact war any longer. We probably aren't even in a US as the only superpower world any longer. We are a superpower with several really significant regional powers and everyone's interests are different.

 

So, I think you are no longer going to see a right/left or interventionist/isolationist approach to foregin affairs. Obama - as is often is want - is trying to be all things to all people. (This is, I think, the fairest criticism of his presidency).

 

We aren't retreating from intervening all over the world. If anything, he's been more aggressive in some areas than even Bush was. I'm thinking of drones and whatever it is exactly we are doing in regards to The Ukraine.

 

But he's not going to do anything that really puts any troops in harm's way. So we intervene....but everyone knows that we have a self-imposed limit.

 

It's interesting, but I would probably criticize both Panetta and Obama from the left on both of their positions. So, it's hard to see their dispute as anything but two sides of the same interventionist coin from where I am sitting.

[PeterMP]

It's interesting, but I would probably criticize both Panetta and Obama from the left on both of their positions. So, it's hard to see their dispute as anything but two sides of the same interventionist coin from where I am sitting.

 

I've decided, I am what I am going to call a focused interventionist when it comes to military action.  Sit out until you are really ready to put some muscle/money/effort behind it.

 

If it is a problem that requires partial efforts, just wait and see if somebody else will deal with it or it will go away on its own.

 

Panetta is at a 1/2 effort.

 

Obama is at a 1/4 effort.

 

(In general, I think Obama sees the potential problems with every action and so his approach is to minimize the problems by taking partial actions.  I don't think he's really trying to be everything to everybody, I think he sees most people have some validity to their point.)

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I've decided, I am what I am going to call a focused interventionist when it comes to military action.  Sit out until you are really ready to put some muscle/money/effort behind it.

 

Isn't that essentially the Bush doctrine by way of the Powell Doctrine?

 

The Bush Doctrine more or less changed the notion of whether the intervention was essential and what actually "winning" meant.

[JoeWolf990]

Your right. Its sort of like how liberals like intolerance while also proclaiming themselves as tolerant. But I digress. Now off to lunch, seeing the bacon thread pop up on the front page of the Tailgate has made me want a BLT!

you dont see my defend Liberals either. I think a large bunch of them are f-boys.

Im way too left to tolerate them. I dont rock with Obama either.