Mr. Panetta alleges in his book that President Obama while good at listening to others' sage opinions, rarely heeds their advice, and that he is lacking in proactive leadership, governing only by crisis--- reacting slowly, rather than heading off problems before they grow too big to manage. He seems at a loss to explain the president's failure to lead, to overcome the rough give and take of Washington politics, saying that he thinks Obama gave up somewhere along the way out of frustration and anger. His most damning charge is that Obama refused to take action in the earlier stages of the Syrian uprising, allowing red lines to be crossed, exhibiting a passive attitude, which in turn emboldened further terrorist aggression---all the while knowing full well that this was the next hot bed for terrorism. Doing so, wrote Panetta, was puzzling , a show of leadership paralysis, and set the stage for the present and worsening situation with ISIS, with which we are now embroiled.
It is a serious charge and one that will erode even further Obama's credibility, which is at an all time low, and rivaling that of some of most unpopular presidents. In addition to the previous charge, Mr. Panetta also criticizes Obama's decision not to leave adequate US troop behind in Iraq. He alleges that Obama was advised by himself, then Sec. of State, Hillary Clinton, the military, and others to negotiate whatever terms it took to keep strong presence in Iraq so that we could guarantee stability and not waste the years and treasure we spent there. Game over on that one---we lost.
There are other serious revelations in Leon Panetta's book, not the least of which are details
regarding the Benghazi attack and the ensuing false statements made by the White House to the public. But in listening to several of Panetta's interviews, in which he discusses his book, one
gets the sense that while he questions many of Obama's decisions or lack thereof, he wishes to
maintain a public stance of respect and even a belief in the president's good intentions, intelligence,
and competence. When asked why he didn't wait until Obama was out of office to write this semi/ scathing book, Mr. Panetta responds that it was precisely because he believes in the president's ability to change, that he will rise to the occasion and our tumultuous times, and even perhaps that the book will somehow give this beleagured president impetus and reason to do so. Seriously? That is highly unlikely, given Obama's politically driven record, and his penchant for digging his heels in. Why would he listen now, at this late date, to Leon Panetta or others? That would require extreme humility, incredible bipartisanship, and a Damascus like epiphany. On the other hand, other presidents have done it, most notably, Lyndon Johnson, Reagan, and Clinton, when it became clear that they were moving against the tide of events ,negative repercussions of their previous decisions, and the general tone of the country. They changed course, and shifted more to the middle, even risking the wrath of their own party base. They listened not to their politically motivated opinions, but did what they thought was the right thing.
But don't hold your breath, Mr. Panetta--- and you might want to make sure your taxes are in order. Because while Mr. Obama seems ever so careful not to offend or attack those who oppose us abroad, his administration has no trouble going after those who disagree with him here at home via the IRS., or public chastisement, via his powerful podium. Recently the man who wrote and produced two films which were highly critical of Obama,"2016" and more recently, "America", Dinesh D'Souza was found guilty of wrongful use of campaign contributions and sentenced to jail, and a heavy dose of public humility. Do the words "scapegoat" or "payback' come to anybody's mind, or do we
actually believe Mr. D"Souza is one of few ever to commit this very questionable crime, and that he was just randomly singled out?
Still, one has to wonder about the nobility of a trusted presidential servant's outing of heretofore privileged information. Were his motives purely for the good of the country and the president, as he states? If so, one has to then ask: But if that was the case, why didn't you speak up sooner, or at least quit your lofty tenure, as a sign of protest over decisions made on your watch? Glaringly obvious, after all, that books make money, especially those that take no prisoners, as this one does not---sort of. Mr. Panetta's interviews were interesting to observe in that he seemed to want it both ways--criticize the president, but make sure everyone understands that he is still a loyal soldier, that the Republicans are still largely to blame for much of the president's unaccomplishments, and that he wishes only the best for Pres. Obama. "Worthy fights"? A very strange title for one who was in the middle of those fights, and caved, rather than to stand tall against what he felt was seriously wrong. Think of the statement your courageous action to tell it like it was may have made---you might have lost your job, but the repercussions may have changed the course of history and possibly saved a country from further crises.
What was most troubling about Leon Panetta's words during one of the interviews were those that
expressed his deep concern for the future of this country---"I am worried", he gravely said. So are we, Mr. Panetta, so are we. His book broke about the same time the Ebola threat enveloped the world, and eclipsed the attention he was receiving. We have not heard from him or his book since, but his words haunt---that Mr. Obama is a crisis reactive president, not a leader with ability to head off disasters before they happen. But Mr. Panetta also expressed his belief that Obama could still leave behind an admirable legacy, if he will only learn to listen and act upon advice other than that with which his political fortunes depend. We can only hope. The crises mount, and the stakes climb higher.
Enter Ebola, exit trust bolstering---
Of course, there are those who remain loyal to the president and his often mysterious ways, saying that his style is one of caution and wisdom, that he listens ultimately to his own drum beat, and those of his most left leaning constituents--- but when the polls, the condition and phyche of the country are signaling otherwise, isn't it time to reconsider? And when your own party members who are running for re-election wish you would make yourself scarce, shouldn't you get a clue? Because the general impression is that either you don't, or that you simply no longer care
what people think--you have a"pen and a phone". Even David Axelrod, one of the president's chief advisors and strongest supporters is publicly worried about the "optics" of Obama's management style. But doesn't he get it? Egad, it's not about "optics", Mr. Axelrod---we don't need special glasses! Even the media has begun to take theirs off--we need a confident, competent country again, based on good, solid decisions by our leaders and the feeling that we're in good hands.
Note to Mr. Gates, Hillary Clinton, and future politically connected authors who knew things were happening that didn't seem right, and remained quiet---come forward, blow the whistle, stand your ground, and resign if necessary--- before you write a book. That would be called guts, integrity, and true concern for the country. After the fact, makes you look suspicious, not to mention an accessory to the results of poor judgement, enabling a president's arrogance, and failure to uphold your duty to the American people who count on you to tell like it like it is, not like it was.
To those who would cry "foul!" to critical books on Obama, we can only say, ---perhaps, but letting the cat of the bag, even later rather than sooner, is at least a warning to a president ---careful how you proceed. The worthiest fight of all is that which is fought above politics and ideologies---and for
history to much later conclude that you did the right thing.
There are other serious revelations in Leon Panetta's book, not the least of which are details
regarding the Benghazi attack and the ensuing false statements made by the White House to the public. But in listening to several of Panetta's interviews, in which he discusses his book, one
gets the sense that while he questions many of Obama's decisions or lack thereof, he wishes to
maintain a public stance of respect and even a belief in the president's good intentions, intelligence,
and competence. When asked why he didn't wait until Obama was out of office to write this semi/ scathing book, Mr. Panetta responds that it was precisely because he believes in the president's ability to change, that he will rise to the occasion and our tumultuous times, and even perhaps that the book will somehow give this beleagured president impetus and reason to do so. Seriously? That is highly unlikely, given Obama's politically driven record, and his penchant for digging his heels in. Why would he listen now, at this late date, to Leon Panetta or others? That would require extreme humility, incredible bipartisanship, and a Damascus like epiphany. On the other hand, other presidents have done it, most notably, Lyndon Johnson, Reagan, and Clinton, when it became clear that they were moving against the tide of events ,negative repercussions of their previous decisions, and the general tone of the country. They changed course, and shifted more to the middle, even risking the wrath of their own party base. They listened not to their politically motivated opinions, but did what they thought was the right thing.
But don't hold your breath, Mr. Panetta--- and you might want to make sure your taxes are in order. Because while Mr. Obama seems ever so careful not to offend or attack those who oppose us abroad, his administration has no trouble going after those who disagree with him here at home via the IRS., or public chastisement, via his powerful podium. Recently the man who wrote and produced two films which were highly critical of Obama,"2016" and more recently, "America", Dinesh D'Souza was found guilty of wrongful use of campaign contributions and sentenced to jail, and a heavy dose of public humility. Do the words "scapegoat" or "payback' come to anybody's mind, or do we
actually believe Mr. D"Souza is one of few ever to commit this very questionable crime, and that he was just randomly singled out?
Still, one has to wonder about the nobility of a trusted presidential servant's outing of heretofore privileged information. Were his motives purely for the good of the country and the president, as he states? If so, one has to then ask: But if that was the case, why didn't you speak up sooner, or at least quit your lofty tenure, as a sign of protest over decisions made on your watch? Glaringly obvious, after all, that books make money, especially those that take no prisoners, as this one does not---sort of. Mr. Panetta's interviews were interesting to observe in that he seemed to want it both ways--criticize the president, but make sure everyone understands that he is still a loyal soldier, that the Republicans are still largely to blame for much of the president's unaccomplishments, and that he wishes only the best for Pres. Obama. "Worthy fights"? A very strange title for one who was in the middle of those fights, and caved, rather than to stand tall against what he felt was seriously wrong. Think of the statement your courageous action to tell it like it was may have made---you might have lost your job, but the repercussions may have changed the course of history and possibly saved a country from further crises.
What was most troubling about Leon Panetta's words during one of the interviews were those that
expressed his deep concern for the future of this country---"I am worried", he gravely said. So are we, Mr. Panetta, so are we. His book broke about the same time the Ebola threat enveloped the world, and eclipsed the attention he was receiving. We have not heard from him or his book since, but his words haunt---that Mr. Obama is a crisis reactive president, not a leader with ability to head off disasters before they happen. But Mr. Panetta also expressed his belief that Obama could still leave behind an admirable legacy, if he will only learn to listen and act upon advice other than that with which his political fortunes depend. We can only hope. The crises mount, and the stakes climb higher.
Enter Ebola, exit trust bolstering---
Of course, there are those who remain loyal to the president and his often mysterious ways, saying that his style is one of caution and wisdom, that he listens ultimately to his own drum beat, and those of his most left leaning constituents--- but when the polls, the condition and phyche of the country are signaling otherwise, isn't it time to reconsider? And when your own party members who are running for re-election wish you would make yourself scarce, shouldn't you get a clue? Because the general impression is that either you don't, or that you simply no longer care
what people think--you have a"pen and a phone". Even David Axelrod, one of the president's chief advisors and strongest supporters is publicly worried about the "optics" of Obama's management style. But doesn't he get it? Egad, it's not about "optics", Mr. Axelrod---we don't need special glasses! Even the media has begun to take theirs off--we need a confident, competent country again, based on good, solid decisions by our leaders and the feeling that we're in good hands.
Note to Mr. Gates, Hillary Clinton, and future politically connected authors who knew things were happening that didn't seem right, and remained quiet---come forward, blow the whistle, stand your ground, and resign if necessary--- before you write a book. That would be called guts, integrity, and true concern for the country. After the fact, makes you look suspicious, not to mention an accessory to the results of poor judgement, enabling a president's arrogance, and failure to uphold your duty to the American people who count on you to tell like it like it is, not like it was.
To those who would cry "foul!" to critical books on Obama, we can only say, ---perhaps, but letting the cat of the bag, even later rather than sooner, is at least a warning to a president ---careful how you proceed. The worthiest fight of all is that which is fought above politics and ideologies---and for
history to much later conclude that you did the right thing.
