It's Been Leaked That On 60 Minutes, Panetta Will Disagree With Obama Not Leaving Troops In Iraq

[EconChick]

I don't see a link yet. It's coming from a leak that 60 Minutes will air it this Sunday.


Somebody might want to help NotFooledWBush. He may need 24 hour surveillance from his friends to make sure he doesn't jump off a proverbial bridge.

Leon Panetta is respected by both sides of the aisle. Many Democrats will listen to him.

i wouldnt put it past CBS to be just makin shit up

to at least get some ratings Sunday

--LOL

i will wait for someone to post some clips of it on youtube

Well you have a point, LOL, but Panetta has always been known to say SOME things like this that lean more toward what conservatives like myself would say.

 

[Plasmaball]

I don't see a link yet. It's coming from a leak that 60 Minutes will air it this Sunday.


Somebody might want to help NotFooledWBush. He may need 24 hour surveillance from his friends to make sure he doesn't jump off a proverbial bridge.

Leon Panetta is respected by both sides of the aisle. Many Democrats will listen to him.

Brett Bair had a clip on it Tonite...Panetta said he disagreed at the time obama wimped out...

can we get a not retarded filter summary of it?

I only heard the one sentence. I perked up because I thought of my poor friend NotFooled. Actually I've been impressed with his valiant effort to defend the person he believes in. It's just that it's wrong.

i stopped paying attention to him honestly.

I actually like NotFooled, just don't tell him. He's probably a class act. And when I was in college I argued like he did.

shrug...most of these people have their own versions and not the actual facts with context.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's Been Leaked That On 60 Minutes, Panetta Will Disagree With Obama Not Leaving Troops In Iraq

If true, Panetta's entitled to his opinion, regardless how wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What Panetta thought in Dec. 2011, and, hint, it's not an expression of dissent about our withdrawal:



video and transcript:

American Rhetoric Leon Panetta -- Address at Ceremony Marking End of U.S. Forces-Iraq Mission transcript audio video

 

[NotfooledbyW]

022.a.02 9806605

Obama refused to keep troops in Iraq because Iraq insisted they be able to charge them with local crimes and Courts. That was Iraq's choice and it was a no go.

022.a.03 9824268

Spot on. I was entirely opposed to any agreement that would have removed immunity from our military forces.

022.a.04 9824805

So was everyone else. That's not what the issue was. Everyone knew that was non negotiable.

You still haven't told us what the issue was.

Your 60 Minutes Show reveals something more important. Maliki wanted the troops gone. So Panetta THE SHOW is not blaming Obama. He's Blaming your beloved Maliki. Hopefully a lot of people watch so they can learn that truth.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

But I do appreciate your helping Hillary win the Presidency. Figure it out.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Funny, they say nothing about EconChick's "PLACEHOLDER" crap.

Fox Leaves Out Important Context Of Leon Panetta's Statement On Iraq Troop Withdrawal
September 19, 2014 9:25 PM EDT ››› SOPHIA TESFAYE


Fox News' Special Report left out necessary context when previewing former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's upcoming interview with 60 Minutes in which he stated, "it was important for us to maintain a presence in Iraq."
During his September 19 coverage of Panetta's statement, host Bret Baier depicted Panetta's account of the 2011 withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq as the latest in "a very public back-and-forth between the White House and the Pentagon." Baier added, "Now this weekend, 60 Minutes has an interview with former CIA director and former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in which he will say the U.S. should not have pulled out all of its troops out of Iraq in 2011":
But Baier failed to mention that the Iraqi government refused a deal to allow U.S. military forces to stay in Iraq. As the New York Times reported in 2011, "Iraqis were unwilling to accept" the terms of a Status of Forces Agreement to leave thousands of troops as a residual force. Fox News has repeatedly failed to mention this important detail.
During his 60 Minutes interview with Panetta, CBS' Scott Pelley provided the crucial bit of context that the Iraqi government "didn't want the U.S. force." Watch:

Blog Media Matters for America

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9830510

he was saying leave troops in 2011...that's what he will say Sunday QUOTE]

Any American can say 'leave the troops there'... but it was not an "American" decision. Sixty Minutes makes it clear whose decision it was. It was of course Iraq's and Maliki's. Maliki set this all in motion when he requested in 2007 the UNSC to terminate the MNF by the end of 2008. That is all on Bush's watch. If you wanted to leave troops in Iraq you needed to persuade Maliki not to take full control of his country. Bush and I guess EconChick 'failed' to convince Maliki to leave the MNF alone.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Here's a headline that has more impact on the lives of people that have been oppressed by the IS terrorist invasion of Iraq last June. But partisan hacks seem to rather play word games on what former officials once said and say now.

Kurdish forces advance against IS in Iraq

Peshmerga fighters, backed by US air-strikes, aim to retake country's second largest city Mosul from Islamic State group Last updated: 14 Sep 2014 08:46 [TBODY] [/TBODY]

Iraq's largest loss to the Islamic State group was Mosul, the country's second biggest city. But now Iraqi Kurdish forces, backed by US air strikes, appear to be advancing in their bid to retake the city from Islamic State fighters. Al Jazeera's John Hendren reports from Mount Zirtec in Iraq.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Kurdish forces advance against IS in Iraq - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

 

[LoneLaugher]

I don't see a link yet. It's coming from a leak that 60 Minutes will air it this Sunday.


Somebody might want to help NotFooledWBush. He may need 24 hour surveillance from his friends to make sure he doesn't jump off a proverbial bridge.

Leon Panetta is respected by both sides of the aisle. Many Democrats will listen to him.

Brett Bair had a clip on it Tonite...Panetta said he disagreed at the time obama wimped out...

can we get a not retarded filter summary of it?

I only heard the one sentence. I perked up because I thought of my poor friend NotFooled. Actually I've been impressed with his valiant effort to defend the person he believes in. It's just that it's wrong.

i stopped paying attention to him honestly.

I actually like NotFooled, just don't tell him. He's probably a class act. And when I was in college I argued like he did.

Oh boy! What I wouldn't give to have you say that you like me! We all live for your praise. I'll bet the guy is trembling with joy.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Funny, they say nothing about EconChick's "PLACEHOLDER" crap.

Fox Leaves Out Important Context Of Leon Panetta's Statement On Iraq Troop Withdrawal
September 19, 2014 9:25 PM EDT ››› SOPHIA TESFAYE


Fox News' Special Report left out necessary context when previewing former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's upcoming interview with 60 Minutes in which he stated, "it was important for us to maintain a presence in Iraq."
During his September 19 coverage of Panetta's statement, host Bret Baier depicted Panetta's account of the 2011 withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq as the latest in "a very public back-and-forth between the White House and the Pentagon." Baier added, "Now this weekend, 60 Minutes has an interview with former CIA director and former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in which he will say the U.S. should not have pulled out all of its troops out of Iraq in 2011":
But Baier failed to mention that the Iraqi government refused a deal to allow U.S. military forces to stay in Iraq. As the New York Times reported in 2011, "Iraqis were unwilling to accept" the terms of a Status of Forces Agreement to leave thousands of troops as a residual force. Fox News has repeatedly failed to mention this important detail.
During his 60 Minutes interview with Panetta, CBS' Scott Pelley provided the crucial bit of context that the Iraqi government "didn't want the U.S. force." Watch:

Blog Media Matters for America

No way! You mean there is some context that we ought to consider? Damn! That sure makes things more complicated!

 

[deltex1]

Here's a headline that has more impact on the lives of people that have been oppressed by the IS terrorist invasion of Iraq last June. But partisan hacks seem to rather play word games on what former officials once said and say now.

Kurdish forces advance against IS in Iraq

Peshmerga fighters, backed by US air-strikes, aim to retake country's second largest city Mosul from Islamic State group Last updated: 14 Sep 2014 08:46

Iraq's largest loss to the Islamic State group was Mosul, the country's second biggest city. But now Iraqi Kurdish forces, backed by US air strikes, appear to be advancing in their bid to retake the city from Islamic State fighters. Al Jazeera's John Hendren reports from Mount Zirtec in Iraq.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Kurdish forces advance against IS in Iraq - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

And others ignore what happened in the recent past...or make up shit about the recent past...to protect the obstinately stupid decisions their leader made...and continues to make.

 

[Dot Com]

Funny, they say nothing about EconChick's "PLACEHOLDER" crap.

Fox Leaves Out Important Context Of Leon Panetta's Statement On Iraq Troop Withdrawal
September 19, 2014 9:25 PM EDT ››› SOPHIA TESFAYE


Fox News' Special Report left out necessary context when previewing former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's upcoming interview with 60 Minutes in which he stated, "it was important for us to maintain a presence in Iraq."
During his September 19 coverage of Panetta's statement, host Bret Baier depicted Panetta's account of the 2011 withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq as the latest in "a very public back-and-forth between the White House and the Pentagon." Baier added, "Now this weekend, 60 Minutes has an interview with former CIA director and former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in which he will say the U.S. should not have pulled out all of its troops out of Iraq in 2011":
But Baier failed to mention that the Iraqi government refused a deal to allow U.S. military forces to stay in Iraq. As the New York Times reported in 2011, "Iraqis were unwilling to accept" the terms of a Status of Forces Agreement to leave thousands of troops as a residual force. Fox News has repeatedly failed to mention this important detail.
During his 60 Minutes interview with Panetta, CBS' Scott Pelley provided the crucial bit of context that the Iraqi government "didn't want the U.S. force." Watch:

Blog Media Matters for America

^ that

embarrassed for OP Seems she "stepped in it" (Texas term ) again w/ another one of her rw hack, drive by threads just to get to the top of the page.

yanno, vanity is generally frowned upon Sugar Shorts (OP)?

 

[deltex1]

Funny, they say nothing about EconChick's "PLACEHOLDER" crap.

Fox Leaves Out Important Context Of Leon Panetta's Statement On Iraq Troop Withdrawal
September 19, 2014 9:25 PM EDT ››› SOPHIA TESFAYE


Fox News' Special Report left out necessary context when previewing former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's upcoming interview with 60 Minutes in which he stated, "it was important for us to maintain a presence in Iraq."
During his September 19 coverage of Panetta's statement, host Bret Baier depicted Panetta's account of the 2011 withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq as the latest in "a very public back-and-forth between the White House and the Pentagon." Baier added, "Now this weekend, 60 Minutes has an interview with former CIA director and former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in which he will say the U.S. should not have pulled out all of its troops out of Iraq in 2011":
But Baier failed to mention that the Iraqi government refused a deal to allow U.S. military forces to stay in Iraq. As the New York Times reported in 2011, "Iraqis were unwilling to accept" the terms of a Status of Forces Agreement to leave thousands of troops as a residual force. Fox News has repeatedly failed to mention this important detail.
During his 60 Minutes interview with Panetta, CBS' Scott Pelley provided the crucial bit of context that the Iraqi government "didn't want the U.S. force." Watch:

Blog Media Matters for America

No way! You mean there is some context that we ought to consider? Damn! That sure makes things more complicated!

yeah that makes sense...we can kill 200000 of their people but we can't get them to agree to a sofa...that makes a whole lot of sense. Maybe it has to do with the wimp on our end of the sofa?

 

[Plasmaball]

Funny, they say nothing about EconChick's "PLACEHOLDER" crap.

Fox Leaves Out Important Context Of Leon Panetta's Statement On Iraq Troop Withdrawal
September 19, 2014 9:25 PM EDT ››› SOPHIA TESFAYE


Fox News' Special Report left out necessary context when previewing former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's upcoming interview with 60 Minutes in which he stated, "it was important for us to maintain a presence in Iraq."
During his September 19 coverage of Panetta's statement, host Bret Baier depicted Panetta's account of the 2011 withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq as the latest in "a very public back-and-forth between the White House and the Pentagon." Baier added, "Now this weekend, 60 Minutes has an interview with former CIA director and former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in which he will say the U.S. should not have pulled out all of its troops out of Iraq in 2011":
But Baier failed to mention that the Iraqi government refused a deal to allow U.S. military forces to stay in Iraq. As the New York Times reported in 2011, "Iraqis were unwilling to accept" the terms of a Status of Forces Agreement to leave thousands of troops as a residual force. Fox News has repeatedly failed to mention this important detail.
During his 60 Minutes interview with Panetta, CBS' Scott Pelley provided the crucial bit of context that the Iraqi government "didn't want the U.S. force." Watch:

Blog Media Matters for America

ah context......

 

[deltex1]

Funny, they say nothing about EconChick's "PLACEHOLDER" crap.

Fox Leaves Out Important Context Of Leon Panetta's Statement On Iraq Troop Withdrawal
September 19, 2014 9:25 PM EDT ››› SOPHIA TESFAYE


Fox News' Special Report left out necessary context when previewing former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's upcoming interview with 60 Minutes in which he stated, "it was important for us to maintain a presence in Iraq."
During his September 19 coverage of Panetta's statement, host Bret Baier depicted Panetta's account of the 2011 withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq as the latest in "a very public back-and-forth between the White House and the Pentagon." Baier added, "Now this weekend, 60 Minutes has an interview with former CIA director and former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in which he will say the U.S. should not have pulled out all of its troops out of Iraq in 2011":
But Baier failed to mention that the Iraqi government refused a deal to allow U.S. military forces to stay in Iraq. As the New York Times reported in 2011, "Iraqis were unwilling to accept" the terms of a Status of Forces Agreement to leave thousands of troops as a residual force. Fox News has repeatedly failed to mention this important detail.
During his 60 Minutes interview with Panetta, CBS' Scott Pelley provided the crucial bit of context that the Iraqi government "didn't want the U.S. force." Watch:

Blog Media Matters for America

ah context......

Ah bullsit

 

[Plasmaball]

Funny, they say nothing about EconChick's "PLACEHOLDER" crap.

Fox Leaves Out Important Context Of Leon Panetta's Statement On Iraq Troop Withdrawal
September 19, 2014 9:25 PM EDT ››› SOPHIA TESFAYE


Fox News' Special Report left out necessary context when previewing former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's upcoming interview with 60 Minutes in which he stated, "it was important for us to maintain a presence in Iraq."
During his September 19 coverage of Panetta's statement, host Bret Baier depicted Panetta's account of the 2011 withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq as the latest in "a very public back-and-forth between the White House and the Pentagon." Baier added, "Now this weekend, 60 Minutes has an interview with former CIA director and former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in which he will say the U.S. should not have pulled out all of its troops out of Iraq in 2011":
But Baier failed to mention that the Iraqi government refused a deal to allow U.S. military forces to stay in Iraq. As the New York Times reported in 2011, "Iraqis were unwilling to accept" the terms of a Status of Forces Agreement to leave thousands of troops as a residual force. Fox News has repeatedly failed to mention this important detail.
During his 60 Minutes interview with Panetta, CBS' Scott Pelley provided the crucial bit of context that the Iraqi government "didn't want the U.S. force." Watch:

Blog Media Matters for America

No way! You mean there is some context that we ought to consider? Damn! That sure makes things more complicated!

yeah that makes sense...we can kill 200000 of their people but we can't get them to agree to a sofa...that makes a whole lot of sense. Maybe it has to do with the wimp on our end of the sofa?

you are a moron

 

[deltex1]

Funny, they say nothing about EconChick's "PLACEHOLDER" crap.

Fox Leaves Out Important Context Of Leon Panetta's Statement On Iraq Troop Withdrawal
September 19, 2014 9:25 PM EDT ››› SOPHIA TESFAYE


Fox News' Special Report left out necessary context when previewing former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's upcoming interview with 60 Minutes in which he stated, "it was important for us to maintain a presence in Iraq."
During his September 19 coverage of Panetta's statement, host Bret Baier depicted Panetta's account of the 2011 withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq as the latest in "a very public back-and-forth between the White House and the Pentagon." Baier added, "Now this weekend, 60 Minutes has an interview with former CIA director and former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in which he will say the U.S. should not have pulled out all of its troops out of Iraq in 2011":
But Baier failed to mention that the Iraqi government refused a deal to allow U.S. military forces to stay in Iraq. As the New York Times reported in 2011, "Iraqis were unwilling to accept" the terms of a Status of Forces Agreement to leave thousands of troops as a residual force. Fox News has repeatedly failed to mention this important detail.
During his 60 Minutes interview with Panetta, CBS' Scott Pelley provided the crucial bit of context that the Iraqi government "didn't want the U.S. force." Watch:

Blog Media Matters for America

No way! You mean there is some context that we ought to consider? Damn! That sure makes things more complicated!

yeah that makes sense...we can kill 200000 of their people but we can't get them to agree to a sofa...that makes a whole lot of sense. Maybe it has to do with the wimp on our end of the sofa?

you are a moron

What balls says when she looks in the mirror...

 

[Plasmaball]

Funny, they say nothing about EconChick's "PLACEHOLDER" crap.

Fox Leaves Out Important Context Of Leon Panetta's Statement On Iraq Troop Withdrawal
September 19, 2014 9:25 PM EDT ››› SOPHIA TESFAYE


Fox News' Special Report left out necessary context when previewing former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's upcoming interview with 60 Minutes in which he stated, "it was important for us to maintain a presence in Iraq."
During his September 19 coverage of Panetta's statement, host Bret Baier depicted Panetta's account of the 2011 withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq as the latest in "a very public back-and-forth between the White House and the Pentagon." Baier added, "Now this weekend, 60 Minutes has an interview with former CIA director and former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in which he will say the U.S. should not have pulled out all of its troops out of Iraq in 2011":
But Baier failed to mention that the Iraqi government refused a deal to allow U.S. military forces to stay in Iraq. As the New York Times reported in 2011, "Iraqis were unwilling to accept" the terms of a Status of Forces Agreement to leave thousands of troops as a residual force. Fox News has repeatedly failed to mention this important detail.
During his 60 Minutes interview with Panetta, CBS' Scott Pelley provided the crucial bit of context that the Iraqi government "didn't want the U.S. force." Watch:

Blog Media Matters for America

ah context......

Ah bullsit

not really, but then again you have no real clue as to the context of the story. You are to busy being a partisan

 

[deltex1]

Funny, they say nothing about EconChick's "PLACEHOLDER" crap.

Fox Leaves Out Important Context Of Leon Panetta's Statement On Iraq Troop Withdrawal
September 19, 2014 9:25 PM EDT ››› SOPHIA TESFAYE


Fox News' Special Report left out necessary context when previewing former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's upcoming interview with 60 Minutes in which he stated, "it was important for us to maintain a presence in Iraq."
During his September 19 coverage of Panetta's statement, host Bret Baier depicted Panetta's account of the 2011 withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq as the latest in "a very public back-and-forth between the White House and the Pentagon." Baier added, "Now this weekend, 60 Minutes has an interview with former CIA director and former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in which he will say the U.S. should not have pulled out all of its troops out of Iraq in 2011":
But Baier failed to mention that the Iraqi government refused a deal to allow U.S. military forces to stay in Iraq. As the New York Times reported in 2011, "Iraqis were unwilling to accept" the terms of a Status of Forces Agreement to leave thousands of troops as a residual force. Fox News has repeatedly failed to mention this important detail.
During his 60 Minutes interview with Panetta, CBS' Scott Pelley provided the crucial bit of context that the Iraqi government "didn't want the U.S. force." Watch:

Blog Media Matters for America

ah context......

Ah bullsit

not really, but then again you have no real clue as to the context of the story. You are to busy being a partisan

I am very familiar with the context of the last 76 years...and can compare them to the past six...depressing.