Skip to main content

View Diary: Panetta: We're in Iraq because of 9/11 (175 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Panetta clarified later: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Misterpuff, Deep Texan, AdamSelene
    Afterward, pressed by reporters to elaborate, Panetta said: “I wasn’t saying, you know, the invasion — or going into the issues or the justification of that. It was more the fact that we really had to deal with al-Qaeda here, they developed a presence here and that tied in.”

    OK, so he wasn't trying to make a point about why we invaded, but about why there are still troops there now - and he's got a point, the invasion sure did attract al Qaeda into Iraq and make a big mess, and the troops that are still there have been given the mission of dealing with that mess.

    But it sure did sound like he was restating the Bushies' argument.  This is the second time in recent days that he's flubbed a public statement.  He really needs to stay away from the microphones until he can get a bit better at public messaging.

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 02:22:52 PM PDT

    •  That's crap (8+ / 0-)

      he was just back-pedaling because he got nailed for the stupid.  Let's just get out of there.  I suspect Iran would be less of an issue if we were gone from Iraq - but they have to find some reason to keep the military contractors sucking all the money out of the Treasury.  

    •  What reason could he use? (3+ / 0-)

      That we are there because Bush lied about the intelligence so he could seek revenge on Sadaam Hussein?  For oil?  because someone thought that a war would secure a strong GOP majority?  Because a war was the best way to funnel large amounts of taxpayer money to Bush's buddies who owned defense contractor companies?  

      Those are the only real reasons that I know of for our involvement in Iraq.  None of those would be appropriate for the soldiers who are risking their lives to be there.  I honestly don't know what he could say.

    •  The back-peddling is really also a lie anyway (3+ / 0-)

      "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" is just an intentionally misleading code word, used to get around the awkwardness of having to say things like "Iraqi Sunni Arab-led insurgency in Iraq."

      •  Thanks for making that clear Garrett (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Garrett, Mnemosyne, Johnny Q

        People are easily fooled and the Washington establishment, their corporate media cronies and public relations firms such as the Rendon Group take advantage of that fact.

        The Rendon Group is a secretive public relations firm that has assisted a number of U.S. military interventions in nations including Argentina, Colombia, Haiti, Iraq, Kosovo, Panama and Zimbabwe. Rendon's activities include organizing the Iraqi National Congress, a PR front group designed to foment the overthrow of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

        “Humankind can not bear very much reality.” - T.S. Eliot

        by truong son traveler on Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 06:52:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  How do you tell the difference (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        between the "terrists" and the home grown Resistance factions that always seem to pop up when foreigners invade?

        You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

        by Johnny Q on Tue Jul 12, 2011 at 12:27:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We see it about Afghanistan too, of course (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Johnny Q

          The Afghanistan War Logs show the military using terms like "Anti-Coalition Militia," when the military is speaking in private. They usually don't know who they are.

          This gets translated into "Taliban"  whenever the government or the media speaks to us. For the obvious propaganda reasons.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site