What is up with Leon Panetta going on Fox News and feeding them anti-Obama talking points?

The O’Reilly Factor spent not one, not two but three segments with Leon Panetta last night. The interview totaled more than 20 minutes of air time. But if you think it’s because of any real interest in Panetta’s new book or his insights as President Obama's former CIA chief or Secretary of Defense – as opposed to his criticisms of Obama – then I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Or maybe Panetta’s new book.

The question is, why was Panetta such a willing partner in Fox’s agenda?

Panetta’s comments could have been scripted by Roger Ailes, himself. Ailes would know better than to have a long-time Democratic insider like Panetta rant and rave about Obama as some kind of America-hating, Muslim-loving, socialist appeaser of our enemies the way Fox News talking heads routinely do. No, Ailes would have cast Panetta as a reluctant critic, one who repeatedly made noises of support for Obama – all the while providing material for Fox News to slit Obama’s throat for years to come.

In Part 1, O’Reilly pressed Panetta to say that Obama committed “a colossal blunder” and not merely “a mistake” by not leaving U.S. troops in Iraq. O’Reilly claimed that it led to the deaths of “tens of thousands” of people.

Pannetta replied, “No question …it was a mistake.”

Now, let’s just assume Panetta has good reasons for coming out with his book and going on a media tour criticizing Obama in the middle of his term (Fox is merely one of many media platforms where Panetta has shot his arrows). But is that any reason to ignore Fox’s self-serving interest?

Why not, for example, point out that Fox is the network that routinely hosts such Iraq-invasion leaders as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld without much interest in holding them accountable?

Instead, Panetta said that Obama supported leaving troops in Iraq but “the real issue” was “how hard did he fight” for it. And when O’Reilly said Obama didn’t fight at all, Panetta never disagreed.

Why didn’t Panetta point out that much of our current ISIS problem can be traced back to the misguided invasion of Iraq in the first place? Which is worse: not negotiating with Iraq forcefully enough when neither Americans nor Iraqis wanted troops there or invading the country under false pretenses and destabilizing the region as Bush did?

Yet, while Panetta gave Fox a big pass on its double standard for examining and critiquing presidents on national security and intelligence, he also played right into their hands on Benghazi.

In response to claims that CIA security contractors were ordered to wait before trying to respond to the attack on the compound in Benghazi, Panetta said he had “no reason” to disbelieve the contractors’ claims. Yet, he did not point out how Fox has used those claims to move the goalpost to suggest the Obama administration prevented forces from ever responding. Even as O’Reilly said the contractors would not release the name of the CIA officer “who wouldn’t order them to help.”

Panetta even allowed O’Reilly to continue with the old “Why didn’t the Obama administration call Benghazi a terrorist attack” attack. Instead of calling out Fox News for harping on such a trivial point – rather than, say, the need to beef up security at our foreign outposts – Panetta played patsy cake:

PANETTA: What I told the president was that there was an attack that was going on in Benghazi and that we were concerned that the consulate there was in trouble…

O’REILLY: Did you use the word “terror attack?”

PANETTA: I used the word “attack,” that there was an attack by terrorists.

O’REILLY: Oh, you said, “Attack by terrorists.”

PANETTA: That’s right.

So O’Reilly played a clip of him badgering Obama in an interview as to whether or not Panetta had used the term “terror attack.” Obama said Panetta told him there was “an attack on our compound,” and that “We don’t know yet who’s doing it.”

“Disingenuous?” O’Reilly asked Panetta.

Panetta could have said that Obama may not have recalled whether or not the specific word “terror” was used and that it really doesn’t matter. But Panetta gave O'Reilly exactly the response he would have hoped for: “We told the president that there is an attack that’s going on, that terrorists are involved in the attack and that as a result of that, we have to respond to it. …There was no question in my mind that it was a terrorist attack.”

The discussion went on and on along these veins, with Panetta sprinkling the “Obama is weak” meme just as Fox would have wanted him to:

• The rest of the world is “getting a mixed message as to whether or not the United States will stand by its word,”
• “When you deal with Putin, you’ve got to deal with him from strength, not weakness… I would have taken some very tough positions with regards to Putin, not just sanctions….”
• "I think this president is smart enough to understand the dangers. The real question is, can he translate that into the kind of action that will help protect this country?”
• "I think deep down (Obama) knows what needs to be done but what he’s got to do is develop the will to fight, to get into the ring in order to make it happen."

This reminds me of Hillary-supporter Ed Rendell praising Fox’s “fairest” coverage of Obama’s ‘08 campaign. And how did Fox reciprocate? By suggesting Clinton faked her concussion and then promoting Rove’s “brain damaged” meme.

So what do you think Panetta is up to here? Leave your thoughts in our comments section.