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

[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?

I'm gonna nominate this for post of the day!

 

[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

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

it would seem you cant

 

[francoHFW]

Obama also wanted to keep troops there, so OP is bs spin. Booosh's boy/idiot/a-hole Maliki was at fault. GONE! finally...

 

[deltex1]

Obama also wanted to keep troops there, so OP is bs spin. Booosh's boy/idiot/a-hole Maliki was at fault. GONE! finally...

Poor slender neeeeeegro couldn't git er done. Faced down by a goofy arab. Disgraceful.

 

[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.

it would seem you cant

Put the mirror down, Balls.

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

it would seem you cant

Put the mirror down, Balls.

thanks for proving me right

 

[Erand7899]

Hasn't anyone ever heard the expression 'throwing good money after bad'?

...and doesn't anyone know what it means?

Yes, I know what it means. However, the question here is what is good and what is bad. How much money and blood are you willing to spend when the terrorists get here? Would you rather fight them in the deserts of Iraq and Syria, with trained combat troops, or fight them in the malls and elementary schools in this country with unarmed civilians?

What does it take to get the idea through the thick skulls of some of you, that a free society cannot defend itself against organized terrorism?

 

[deltex1]

Hasn't anyone ever heard the expression 'throwing good money after bad'?

...and doesn't anyone know what it means?

Yes, I know what it means. However, the question here is what is good and what is bad. How much money and blood are you willing to spend when the terrorists get here? Would you rather fight them in the deserts of Iraq and Syria, with trained combat troops, or fight them in the malls and elementary schools in this country with unarmed civilians?

What does it take to get the idea through the thick skulls of some of you, that a free society cannot defend itself against organized terrorism?

We can destroy terrorism wherever it is with some leadership. Get this stumbling fucking moron Obabble out of the way and get on with the extermination.

 

[deltex1]

I didnt mean to frighten you, Balls.

 

[EconChick]

It's been fun watching MSNBC and CNN, not to mention NY Times and every other liberal media outlet, grapple with the TRUTH.

 

[EconChick]

Oops, the hit on Obama's big Iraq lies are taking big hit today. Press is forced to replay Obama's "I promised I'd win the war and I did" lie, along with all his other Iraq doozies. Ooops

 

[EconChick]

Fallout from 60 Minutes interview with Panetta has White House in knots. Awwww.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

You might try Ritalin for that. It could also improve the quality of your posts.

Panetta is obviously a closet racist. He will be dismissed by the Obama knee-padders in no time.

 

[EconChick]

Oops, Now O'Reilly is touching out and reaching his huge audience on this as we speak.

 

[EconChick]

Now that anyone who is anyone has admitted Obama fucked up not leaving a residual force there, it's gonna be even tougher for hacks to tow the lie.

 

[EconChick]

Interviewer: Was it a mistake to not leave troops there? Panetta: "yes it was."

Lots jumping off the Obama ship. Oops

 

[francoHFW]

It was Booosh's idiot Maliki's fault. All of it. Shove your macho stupidity, racist hater dupes. You wrecked the world. Functional morons.

 

[deltex1]

It was Booosh's idiot Maliki's fault. All of it. Shove your macho stupidity, racist hater dupes. You wrecked the world. Functional morons.

You're so fucking stupid you think we could kill Saddam but had to kiss maliki's ass? The only difference in the two equations was one guy had balls and one guy has a pussy.

 

[francoHFW]

And that's how you loudmouth chickenhawk morons wrecked the world. And you'd do it again....

 

[francoHFW]

And Obama DOES NOT DISAGREE with Panetta. More horseshytte from Rush, Sean, Glenn and the rest of the GOP brain trust lol...