A New Theory About Hagel...

[Selene]

My thesis about Hagel

Posted: 15 Dec 2012 03:59 PM PST

(Paul Mirengoff)

So now we are beginning to see what this marxist's "Second Term" is going to look like. He has taken the pre-election restraints off the EPA and it has released hundreds of regulations designed to further cripple American industry.

So now, apparently, he turns to the "Jewish lobby" at home and to take care of Israel globally.

Politico reports that President Obama, having just backed down from one major Senate confirmation fight, may be running headlong into another one, as “some in the Jewish community and other Israel backers are reacting with alarm to reports that Obama is preparing to nominate former Sen. Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense.”

Continuing, the author notes that his "thesis:"

...about Hagel is that Obama wants to nominate him precisely because it will upset some in the Jewish community and other Israel backers. This is a fight Obama is confident he can win, since Hagel is a former Republican Senator. And by winning it, Obama believes he will cut the Jewish lobby down to size.

Therefore,

...the Jewish lobby needs to be cut down is axiomatic among a certain type of Washington pol. ... Acknowledging that Hagel has been a leader among those who denounce the supposed power of the Jewish lobby, Politico turns to David Kurtzer, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, for an explanation:

'Anybody who has ever talked to senators or congressmen behind closed doors knows you hear a lot of that,' Kurtzer said. 'A lot of people won’t talk about that publicly, but Hagel talks about it in public. One can question whether it’s good politics from his standpoint, but it’s not a view that’s foreign on the Hill.'

So, is this marxist merely anti-Israel. anti-Zionist, or anti-semitic, or all of the above? His actions shout loudly:

This is the man who spiritually followed the rabidly anti-Israel Rev. Wright; who gave a tribute to former PLO operative Rashid Khalidi so explosive that it has never seen the light of day; who has never visited Israel during his time in office, despite having been as close as thirty minutes away in Egypt, and managing to go to Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iraq; who told Jewish leaders in July 2009 that he was deliberately adopting a policy of putting daylight between America and Israel; and who snubbed Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington DC and complained to Nicolas Sarkozy about having to deal with the Israeli prime minister.

The inside the beltway Republican Conservative whore's like Bill Kristol claim that:

'...Hagel’s front-runner status to the fact that Hagel was a Republican Senator, which means that Obama might get credit for bipartisanship. But the criticism Obama receives from Israel’s supporters, and the uncomfortable position in which the nomination will place Democrats like Sen. Schumer, will more than offset any points for “reaching across the aisle.'

Since we already know by the marxist's first term that he has absolutely no administrative, or, executive abilities. Moreover, even his friends admit that he has no leadership skills and can not negotiate his way out of a one way tunnel.

So since Hagel "...has no background in successfully managing, or helping to manage, large organizations." Why the hell would you nominate him to manage a nightmare like the Defense Department?

Kristol explains that the "front-runner status" for Hagel is that he:

...demonstrates ...his 'anti-Israel, pro-appeasement-of-Iran bona fides.'

Any thoughts on this OLers?

A...

[Frediano]

Whew. For a scary second there, I thought you had misspelled 'Hegel'...

[Selene]

Whew. For a scary second there, I thought you had misspelled 'Hegel'...

Precisely why I worded it that way on this forum.

My "sick" sense of semantic satire.

Thanks for noticing...

A...

[Frediano]

The Left's position on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is based on the absolute that "rich vs. poor' trumps even KKK sensibilities.

As in, Arafat's Uncle Nazi -- Hajj Amin al-Husseini, and his original complaint in BM Palestine in the mid 20's, paraphrased as 'too many Jews buying land in the 'hood.' (Buying land... in the 'hood.) The cause of the strife was the same old same old; newly arriving Jews in BM Palestine were buying land at prices that not even the seller's could afford. Class warfare jealousy and hatred, the very lifeblood of the Left. Literally lifeblood; resulting in the Hebron massacre in '29.

We are supposed to believe that there was a Magic Jinn, a kind of 'Maxwell's Demon' (named Max?) on those docks in Europe, sending all the reasonable Jews to the USA and all the baby eating Jews to BM Palestine. Why didn't Jews and Arabs in BM Palestine accomplish what was easily and peacefully done in the USA, which has been, as Americans living side by side? Because America inhibits the underbelly of KKK sensibilities; America diluted those sensibilities( eg, Byrd was just one of 100 Senators, not the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem...).

And to this day, when we see the pictures of the resorts in Israel next to the squalor of the camps, it is a no brainer which side the Left is going to support, no matter what the self-inflicted KKK origins of their failures. Rich vs. Poor will always trump KKK-- will always trump every consideration with the Left.

And from that, Obama's seething hatred of all things Israeli in that still festering 'Rich vs. KKK Poor' conflict is not hard to understand; it is a complete knee-jerk leftwing response.

[Selene]

Fred:

Agreed. Problem is this incompetent, petulant, insecure marxist is the President of the US and more than 50% of our fellow voting citizens actually said yes to his re-election.

Essentially, it sure looks like it is over because the other gang of incompetents called Republicans are just as bad.

Boehner! Good grief! He is the f_ _ _ _ ing Speaker of the House! Can you imagine Gingrich, or, Tip O'Neill acting like this mutt?

A...

[Reidy]

One possible outcome is that he will back down as he did with Rice but at much greater political expense. Let's wait and see. I don't see that Boehner has much to do with it, as the House doesn't confirm nominations.

[Frediano]

OTOH, it is hard to find any fault with Kerry's qualifications as Sec of State. The position is just not that political -- it is mostly responsibility without authority, carrying out the POTUS policies.

Hillary may or may not have agreed with policy, but she was ultimately carrying out Obama's vision as Sec of State. She acted the good soldier in that context, which is why I think it is really weasely for the current meme to be 'State Dept blamed for Bangazhi policies...' That is the Obama Admin slipping another punch, period.

Hillary came within a hairs breadth of defeating Obama in 2008 primaries. And then she smiled, and quietly took the thankless job of Sec of State, and soldiered on for the right amount of time. She's left the admin now, in time to prepare for her run in 2016, no matter what she says to the contrary. And if the hapless GOP runs Christie against her, she will wipe him up.

I don't agree with much of her politics, but you must admire her as a politician. She is formidable, tough. And, no hope for freedom lovers.

The GOP, otoh, is false hope for freedom lovers, and has been for decades. Even Reagan, who traded away a little more guns in exchange for a lot more butter in the 80s, all so he could hasten the demise of a system that was already farming with oxcarts in the 80s...and we knew it. Hastening the demise of the USSR came at the cost of our own. But like all politicians, Reagan is long gone when the piper shows up to be paid for what they once wanted. (I voted for Clark in '80, little good that it did...)

Neither wing of the National Party is currently doing anything to avert any fiscal crisis, or even, talking about anything to avert any crisis. I'm not talking about the short term bogus crisis of 'how are we going to keep the gig flying for another 18 months', but the long term real crisis of 'how are we going to avoid becoming overwhelmed by public debt, overtaxed economies flat on their backs, a busted credit card, and politically defined benefits that are sending us on rails to Greece.' They want to glibly 'raise the debt ceiling,' as a 'solution.' Let's make it 'two years' so we don't have to keep being confronted by it. But the former #1 willing holder of US Debt -- the SS Trust Fund -- is no longer that willing lender. When they glibly raise the debt ceiling on its way past 20T, they not only need to find brand new willing debt holders, but at the same time, replace the former #1 debt holder. That painless signature with a pen is fast reaching the end of the line; reality is going to smack us all up the side of the head. All they are doing is making the inevitable worse with every do-nothing one/thousandth measure.

Can't even call them 'half measures' they are so lame.

We are 30 years past 'half measures.' All that is left is the jockeying for position in the post-crash universe blame game, which is painfully clear is all they are currently doing.

Do Dems come out on top of that steaming pile of wreckage? the hapless GOP, who, bereft of ideas for the last 50 years, did more to grow an unchecked federal government than any Democrat? And if neither -- if the growing "a pox on both houses" sentiment grows ever stronger, then who?

[Selene]

Fred:

I disagree with your position on Reagan.

However, we agree on the rest.

Pete:

My reference to the crying bar sweeper was about stopping the O'bama agenda by not funding it, as well as, refusing to raise taxes on anyone and letting the "draconian" cuts occur. They are neither draconian, or, sufficient cuts anyway.

A...

[william.scherk]

My thesis about Hagel

Posted: 15 Dec 2012 03:59 PM PST

(Paul Mirengoff)

So now we are beginning to see what this marxist's "Second Term" is going to look like. He has taken the pre-election restraints off the EPA and it has released hundreds of regulations designed to further cripple American industry.

So now, apparently, he turns to the "Jewish lobby" at home and to take care of Israel globally.

[...]

Any thoughts on this OLers?

Republicans can support Hagel with a clear conscience on Israel. To say "my country right or wrong" is one thing, but reckoning national interest gets heated over the Jewish State and the Palestinian (future) State as part of the US policy leviathan

[Selene]

One of the worst choices for Secretary of State has just been made by President Incompetano...

Obama Picks Kerry for Secretary of State, Official Says By MARK LANDLER Published: December 21, 2012

WASHINGTON — President Obama plans to nominate Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts as secretary of state, a senior administration official said, succeeding Hillary Rodham Clinton and putting in place the first member of his second-term national security team.

Brendan Hoffman for The New York Times

Senator John Kerry during a hearing last week in Washington.

The appointment of Mr. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat and his party’s former presidential nominee in 2004, has been widely expected since last week, when Susan E. Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, asked Mr. Obama to withdraw her candidacy for the post.

Ms. Rice had come under weeks of attack from Republicans in Congress over her role in the aftermath of the deadly attack on the United States mission in Benghazi, Libya. Mr. Kerry, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, oversaw a hearing on Benghazi on Thursday, at which the State Department came under renewed criticism for its failure to respond to requests for additional security in Libya.

The decision by Mr. Obama, expected to be announced early Friday afternoon, comes at a time when Mrs. Clinton has been recovering from a concussion suffered earlier this month. Mrs. Clinton, who has long said she would leave the post after Mr. Obama’s first term, is not expected to attend the announcement.

An elder of the Democratic foreign-policy establishment, Mr. Kerry, 69, has long coveted the job of secretary of state. He built close ties to Mr. Obama, giving him the keynote speech assignment that helped begin his national political career at the Democratic convention in 2004 and becoming an early Senate supporter of Mr. Obama’s presidential run.

Mr. Kerry has carried out several diplomatic missions for the Obama administration, helping to persuade President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan to agree to a runoff election in 2009. Early in the administration, he also tried to engage President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, who has waged a brutal crackdown on his own people as he fights to cling to power.

President Obama does not intend to name a new secretary of defense or director of the Central Intelligence Agency on Friday, an official said.

One of the front-runners for the Pentagon post, former Senator Chuck Hagel, is fighting off a series of criticisms of his record, not unlike the campaign that dogged Ms. Rice. The White House has defended Mr. Hagel, though officials said on Thursday that Mr. Obama had not yet decided whom to nominate for that post.

The contest for C.I.A. has come down to two names: Michael J. Morrell, the current acting director, and John O. Brennan, the president’s counterterrorism adviser.

[Frediano]

Selene:

I understand Reagan's visceral Cold War hatred of the USSR, and shared it. But it was collapsing on its own; we -knew- they were farming with ox carts in the 80s. Accelerating that sure demise came at the cost of our own. We did not win the Cold War, we ended it... and caught the Cold. We are still coughing up left wing phlegm. That accelerated demise of the USSR -- Reagan's deal with O'Neill for 'a little more guns in exchange for a lot more butter' -- has come at the cost of accelerating our own demise. In the parlance of Big Lie, Up is Down, Left is Right, Black is White DC political speech, they didn't 'save SS' in the 80s, they mutually carved it up for short term goals, in such a way that guaranteed the screwing over of future generations. They added an additional nearly 10% of earnings surcharge on the broad middle class and everyone who paid payroll tax, not to create a 'surplus' in the poorly named Trust Fund, but to raise taxes and subsidize then current spending, period. Instead of leaving that 30 yr period of demographic surplus with a clean credit card and healthy Treasury, we are handing over a busted credit card and a bleeding Treasury. There is no 'fiscal fix' for the current wreck on rails unless it involves a Time Machine, and politicians back then, when this was done, -knew it-. Moynihan, three decades ago, on the floor of the Senate: "God help us when they realize what we did to them." He was talking about us, today, in these bleeding economies.

They weren't satisfied with the then current generational surplus(an extra 30 million Boomers at the peak of their earnings and tax paying years.) They spent all of that surplus PLUS borrowed even more from future generations. And Reagan was part of that Grand Bargain, driven by his absolute Cold War loathing of the USSR and his belief that a nation known to be farming with ox carts was going to be a continuing future threat to freedom in the world.

1989: Berlin Wall collapses. USSR is toast. And, so is USA, but the carcass was much bigger.

1991: Not two years after the public failure of centrally planned command and control 'The Economy' running, Carville's 4 word bumper sticker argument cuts through the GOP brain trust like a hot knife through butter: "It's the Economy, Stooopit!"

1992: Nobody much notices when Perot of EDS/Perot Systems/Automated Government Healthcare/Medicare processing systems fame spends 50 million rolling the dice trying to make sure the Clinton's get a shot at implementing National HealthCare. That 50 million investment almost paid off big time.

1992-1994: GOP and Dems afraid to engage in actual debate, the era of full blown clown politics arrives. Clinton levels off Reagan era increased in defense spending...and economies continue to rise, resulting in surplus. If you remember, he campaigned on the absolute need for a 'Stimulus Plan' ... which he didn't get, it didn't pass a Congress with both houses controlled by the Dems! Instead, what was realized was the defense leveling that he initiated-- reduced government spending. And the economies soared...

1994: GOP wins holding skirmish, takes House, has held it ever since. Does this slow down growth of government? Hardly. The National Party has arrived in full force. Comes in choice of two colors, Red and Blue.

Jan 1995: Clinton announces "The Erah of Big Guvmint is Ovah" and nation goes to sleep as the National Party ushers in "The Erah Of Really Massive Huge Government." Merely "Big" is so 1984...

Was merely accelerating the demise of an already free-falling USSR worth our own demise? Because that, in the end, is Reagan's legacy.

[Frediano]

Sec of State is a cabinet level position; the office holder carries the POTUS water overseas, period. Does not set policy, does not make policy. Conveys policy set by the POTUS. That is why there should be little objection to Kerry; Sec of State is not an autonomous position in government. It is all responsibility and no authority; the people who serve as Sec of State actually serve the POTUS, and indirectly, the nation.

Hillary did not initiate or implement any policies not initiated/approved by the POTUS, and neither will Kerry. (This current nonsense about firewalling all the blame for Benghazi deep inside the Dept of State is total nonsense; when did the Sec of State become an autonomous position? It is a cabinet level post, serving at the pleasure of and direction by the POTUS, who, although able to freely take advice from same, is ultimately responsible for executive policies carried out by those cabinet level departments.)

Kerry's a vet. He came close to being POTUS in 2004. He's for sure qualified to carry the POTUS water as Sec of State, where his politics matter little. The GOP needs to learn where to pick it's battles, because it hasn't won a major one in a long time...and yet, is wearing the blame for every failure of common government.

[Selene]

Fred:

My respect for Reagan has to do with his messaging that was desperately needed after the assassin ridden 1960's, Nixon's Watergate debacle and Carter's ascendancy in accelerated incompetency.

His hard line, along with Pope John Paul and Lech Walesa created the image that the Soviet Union could be taken down.

As to Secretaries of State, George Marshall set policy under Truman while Truman was learning the ropes, as did his successor Dean Acheson.

John Foster Dulles was certainly a key influential person in the Eisenhower administration and certainly not a shrinking violet.

So I am confused by your assessment and evaluation of that cabinet position.

Henry Kissinger certainly heavily influenced Nixon.

Having been in a key position in government, I can confirm that by controlling the information to the administrator, you control the decisions.

A...

[Selene]

Let's get ready to rock and roll on this nomination!

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), the Republican whip, told me in a phone interview this morning he would oppose the nomination of Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense: “I can’t support a Hagel nomination if it comes,” he said. He is the first senator to expressly state he would oppose Hagel. He told me he thinks there would be substantial opposition to Hagel on both sides of the aisle. “I’ve heard prominent Democrats concerned about his position on Israel. Many Republican have said they did not want to prejudge. But it would be a bad move and one of the reasons I’ve taken the position [to oppose]. ‘Mr. President don’t do that. It would be a bad nomination.’”

Hmm seems the big mouth has some statements on the record...

He pointed to another statement Hagel made in 2010. “He said he wouldn’t support all options being on the table.” This is also inconsistent with the president’s position. Cornyn asked rhetorically, “How does it help to tell Iran that?”

And the big mouthed clown has more quotes...

Cornyn referred to Hagel’s support for a group that favors elimination of all nuclear weapons: “On the issue of nuclear weapons he’s embraced Global Zero. It strikes me as particularly naive … To have a secretary of Defense who believes all nuclear weapons should be eliminated is . . . well, just over the top.”

Damn...numbnuts has more statements...

Cornyn also objected to Hagel’s remark in 2009 that “I’m not sure we know what the hell we are doing in Afghanistan.” (Although Cornyn did not cite it specifically, Hagel also remarked in 2011 that the U.S. ”lost our purpose, our objective” in Afghanistan.) Cornyn criticized the failure in Iraq to obtain a status of forces agreement that puts our gains at risk, arguing that Hagel would do the same in Afghanistan. He argued that ”it appears to me his position in Afghanistan after all we’ve invested, all the blood we’ve spilled” would leave the country in disarray and right back where it was before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Obviously I do not like the man...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2012/12/21/exclusive-top-republican-senator-will-oppose-hagel-nomination/?print=1

[Selene]

And there is more from the mouth that roared...

Posted: 21 Dec 2012 09:53 AM PST

(Scott Johnson)

Chuck Hagel’s past comments continue to haunt the man who is rumored to be President Obama’s top candidate for the position of Secretary of Defense. Last night an interview reemerged of Hagel insisting that James C. Hormel, President Clinton’s 1997 nominee to be ambassador to Luxembourg, was unqualified for his appointment because he was “openly, aggressively gay.”** It didn’t take long before a prominent gay rights group declared his views “unacceptable.”

Now someone has posted audio of Hagel musing about the power of the “Jewish Lobby” in Washington, DC. Some Hagel defenders scoffed when Bret Stephens called out Hagel for “especially ripe” prejudice. This audio will make that scoffing much more difficult.

It’s difficult to believe that President Obama will want to spend the kind of political capital it will take to win what increasingly seems like a brutal nomination fight. In just the last hour or two Sen. John Cornyn, the powerful Republican whip, has declared his opposition to Hagel’s nomination. Perhaps appearances would be even worse for Obama, who would be seen as having abandoned Democrat and loyalist Susan Rice only to turn around and promote a putative Republican who indulges in rhetoric offensive to supporters of Israel and homosexual rights.

UPDATE: Hagel apologized this morning for his anti-gay comments in 1998:

Former Sen. Chuck Hagel, seeking to preserve his viability for nomination as secretary of Defense, on Friday issued a strong apology for a gay slur in 1998 that turned some top Democratic activists against his potential selection. …

With gay groups marshaling opposition, Hagel said in a statement provided by an aide: “My comments 14 years ago in 1998 were insensitive. They do not reflect my views or the totality of my public record, and I apologize to Ambassador Hormel and any LGBT Americans who may question my commitment to their civil rights. I am fully supportive of ‘open service’ and committed to LGBT military families.”

It is ironic that a prospective nominee for Secretary of Defense feels obliged to apologize not for being wrong on pretty much every defense issue of the last twenty years, or for a seemingly bigoted hostility toward one of America’s chief allies, or for attitudes toward some of our principal enemies that are, construed charitably, willfully blind; but rather, for having been unenthusiastic about the idea of openly gay ambassadors.

** Out of curiosity, how do you look when you are "open" and "aggressively gay?"

This man is such an incompetent that he is probably perfect for the President's cabinet.

A...

[Frediano]

Fred:

My respect for Reagan has to do with his messaging that was desperately needed after the assassin ridden 1960's, Nixon's Watergate debacle and Carter's ascendancy in accelerated incompetency.

His hard line, along with Pope John Paul and Lech Walesa created the image that the Soviet Union could be taken down.

As to Secretaries of State, George Marshall set policy under Truman while Truman was learning the ropes, as did his successor Dean Acheson.

John Foster Dulles was certainly a key influential person in the Eisenhower administration and certainly not a shrinking violet.

So I am confused by your assessment and evaluation of that cabinet position.

Henry Kissinger certainly heavily influenced Nixon.

Having been in a key position in government, I can confirm that by controlling the information to the administrator, you control the decisions.

A...

Well, that is how presidents choose cabinet level advisers, I guess that is fair enough. But this is important; are they influential because they are in the cabinet, or are they in the cabinet because they are influential? Said another way, would Kissinger have influenced Nixon whether he was SecState or not?

I don't picture many of these paternalistic megalomaniacs being eager power sharers; they might all have considered opinions to a lessor or greater extent, but they also surround themselves with the like minded, insulating themselves in an echo chamber to a lesser or greater extent as well. I think the current POTUS to a greater extent...

Obama seems to use his cabinet level positions a little differently. After narrowly defeating Hillary in the 2008 primary, he parked her safely at State where she soldiered on. And looking at the current BenghaziGate whitewash, he also uses those bodies as interference, shielding him from responsibility for his executive policy.

He's extended the adage "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer; in fact, use their bodies as human shields."

[Selene]

So folks...the Senatorial trivia question of the day is:

How many self hating, pro-Iranian Jewish Senators voted for the incompetent anti-Semite to be the Secretary of Defense today?

A little help...one is the scumbag piece of rancid meat Senator Chuck "the schmuck" Schumer of New York.

A...

[BaalChatzaf]

So folks...the Senatorial trivia question of the day is:

How many self hating, pro-Iranian Jewish Senators voted for the incompetent anti-Semite to be the Secretary of Defense today?

A little help...one is the scumbag piece of rancid meat Senator Chuck "the schmuck" Schumer of New York.

A...

Or as Alfonse Dimatto called him: Senator Schmeckle Head (in English: Senator Dick Head)

You know, both Schumer and I are both ashamed that Schumer is Jewish.

Ba'al CHatzaf

[Selene]

So folks...the Senatorial trivia question of the day is:

How many self hating, pro-Iranian Jewish Senators voted for the incompetent anti-Semite to be the Secretary of Defense today?

A little help...one is the scumbag piece of rancid meat Senator Chuck "the schmuck" Schumer of New York.

A...

Or as Alfonse Dimatto called him: Senator Schmeckle Head (in English: Senator Dick Head)

You know, both Schumer and I are both ashamed that Schumer is Jewish.

Ba'al CHatzaf

Very nice Bob...simple, surgical and savagely stated!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There goes Rand Paul.

He ended up voting for Hagel.

Michael

[Selene]

There goes Rand Paul.

He ended up voting for Hagel.

Michael

Michael:

I am astounded at the "miscalculation," "utter stupidity," or, "outright incompetence" by Rand[Paul that is].

I cannot fathom what possessed him to take this path.

It only allows me to conclude that my sense about the path forward is quite apparent.

A third party, or, a full withdrawal strike.

The Administrative State is metastasizing at an exponential rate.

A...

[Backlighting]

Where is John Galt?

[Selene]

Where is John Galt?

In our minds waiting patiently for us to accept him and withdraw...

[caroljane]

Where is John Galt?

In our minds waiting patiently for us to accept him and withdraw...

Sure, that's what you all say at the start.

[Selene]

Where is John Galt?

In our minds waiting patiently for us to accept him and withdraw...

Sure, that's what you all say at the start.

You are making an illusion from the "you" and the "start?