“The Elephant In The Room With Leon Panetta”: A Political Actor Working For Someone Else’s Electoral Gain?
In his widely read blog of Beltway goings-on, Chris Cillizza made the following fairly obvious point about former defense Ssecretary Leon Panetta’s Obama-bashing media tour:
What’s fascinating about this gripe with Obama is how much it plays into a) the argument that Hillary Clinton made against him in the 2008 presidential primary and b) the argument Hillary Clinton will likely make when (sorry, if) she runs for president in 2016. That argument, in short: I have been there and done that. I know what it takes to move the levers of power in Washington—and I am willing to do whatever it takes to make them move.
In addition, Panetta’s criticisms mainly involve Obama’s reluctance to use military force—also a fault line between Clinton and Obama, particularly on the matter of arming the Syrian rebels.
But the Beltway press shouldn’t be afraid to explicitly ask if Panetta is serving as an agent of Clinton’s official-but-not-yet-official presidential campaign. It’s not just that his criticisms dovetail with Clinton’s and are no doubt politically convenient for her as she attempts to draw a difference with the Obama administration—there are explicit ties to the shadow Clinton campaign that should make this question fair game.
Panetta has taken up residence at Beacon Global Strategies, where he is a senior counselor. He has deep ties to the group’s leaders; Jeremy Bash, Beacon’s founder and managing director, was Panetta’s chief of staff at both the CIA and the Pentagon. Another founder and managing director is Philippe Reines—one of Hillary’s closest allies and someone widely understood to still be managing her public profile.
Reines helped found Beacon after years spent with Hillary. He joined her Senate office in 2002 and later moved to the State Department when she became secretary. He is Clinton’s “chief personal defender,” in the words of New York magazine, who reported in a profile earlier this year that in addition to running Beacon, Reines’s “second full-time job” is working for Hillary. When she decides to run, Reines will be part of the campaign. In many ways, he already is.
So Panetta’s very close ties to Clinton’s non-campaign campaign should naturally raise the question if he, too, is an explicit part of it.
Note that Panetta first made a splash with his tough criticisms of Obama during a September 21 interview with 60 Minutes, in which he blasted the president for not arming the Syrian opposition sooner. “I think that would’ve helped,” he said. “And I think in part, we pay the price for not doing that in what we see happening with ISIS.” The “paying the price” line made headlines around the country the next day.
That very same Sunday, Bill Clinton appeared on CNN—and made the exact same point, and made it clear that Panetta and his wife were on the same page. “I supported two years ago the proposal that Hillary and Secretary Panetta and then–CIA director General Petraeus made to give more robust armed support to the Syrians,” he told Fareed Zakaria.
With Reines managing Hillary’s public image, and Panetta and Bill Clinton making the same point on the same day, the question of coordination is unavoidable.
That’s not to say Panetta’s criticisms shouldn’t be considered on their merits, nor that there’s anything wrong with this coordination. But it’s crucial context in which to understand his position—that perhaps he’s not just a reluctant critic trying to call out policy failures, but also a political actor working for someone else’s electoral gain.
By: George Zornick, The Nation, October 9, 2014
“Clinton vs. Cheney”: The More These Two Go At It, The Worse It Is For Republicans
No doubt trying to salvage his abysmal reputation, failed former Vice President Dick Cheney has maintained a near-ubiquitous media presence lately, condemning the Obama administration’s foreign policy and coming awfully close to accusing President Obama of treason.
Former President Bill Clinton is apparently a little tired of it, telling NBC News’ David Gregory this week that Cheney’s condemnations amounted to “attacking the administration for not doing an adequate job of cleaning up the mess that he made.”
“I believe if they hadn’t gone to war in Iraq, none of this would be happening,” the former president told David Gregory in the interview, which will air Sunday on “Meet the Press.”
He continued: “Mr. Cheney has been incredibly adroit for the last six years or so attacking the administration for not doing an adequate job of cleaning up the mess that he made. I think it’s unseemly.”
Apparently, the former V.P. wants to keep this going.
After Clinton knocked Cheney for attacking the Obama administration, Cheney threw one back at the former President on Wednesday night.
“If there’s somebody who knows something about unseemly, it’s Bill Clinton,” Cheney told the crowd at the Energy Expo trade show in Billings, Mont.
I don’t know if (or how) the former president will respond to what seems like a cheap shot, but if there’s a prolonged dispute between Clinton and Cheney, I like the Big Dog’s chances.
Laura Ingraham made a compelling case last night, for example, that it’s not in Republicans’ interest to re-litigate Cheney’s invasion of Iraq, which the American mainstream long ago turned against in large numbers.
[A]ccording to Ingraham, the war’s merits have been trumped by poll numbers. The people have spoken, and it would behoove Republicans to listen.
“The problem is when you go to the public on this, Bill, if we think this is somehow going to help the Republican Party in 2014 or 2016 to be re-litigating Iraq on a daily or weekly basis, I don’t think that’s a winner,” she told O’Reilly.
“The idea that you’re going to kind of one-up Clinton on this, I don’t think that that’s ultimately – as a political matter, that’s different than a foreign policy matter – it’s gonna work,” Ingraham added.
I think that’s correct – the polling on public attitudes towards the war is one-sided – but I’d go just one step further.
Even putting aside questions about foreign policies and the public’s war weariness, Bill Clinton vs. Dick Cheney is the kind of match-up that Democrats welcome.
Love him or hate him, the former Democratic president is enormously popular. A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found Clinton is easily the most admired president of the last quarter century. Whatever one might think of his presidency, Clinton is one of the most well liked figures on the planet.
Dick Cheney is … Dick Cheney. The man’s name is synonymous with violence and failure. Outside of far-right circles, Cheney enjoys little credibility, even less respect, and is more often seen as a punch-line to a painful joke.
The more these two go at it, the worse it is for Republicans.
By: Steve Benen, The Maddow Blog, June 27, 2014
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 