Friday, February 01, 2013

Remember, Hagel is the guy Obama wants

So why would the President nominate someone like Chuck Hagel who has had to spend his time during his confirmation hearings to deny that he meant so many of the things that he has had said in his past? He was bumbling and noticeably ignorant. He didn't understand U.S. policy towards Iran which he thinks is governed by an "elected, legitimate" government and bumbled his way through trying to deny his record on Israel.

The problem for Chuck Hagel is that he has a record of saying things and voting ways that demonstrate he is a man with a contemptuous view of America and Israel, yet with a propitiatory attitude towards Iran. He had to deny all these things that he has said even when he was confronted with an interview with al Jazeera in which he agreed that the U.S. has served as the world's bully. I guess that makes him a good partner for our new Secretary of State who once described the U.S. military as "the army of Genghis Khan."

He went so far as to say he doesn't "know much" about military programs and technology. In fact "There are a lot things I don't know about. I, if confirmed, intend to know a lot more than I do." Wow, that's a relief.

But then maybe he's adopted the Hillary Doctrine of "What difference does it make?" because he said that what he believed didn't matter because being Defense secretary is "not a policymaking position." Apparently, he's content with being told what to do by the White House and having aides who will fill in for all the gaps he's displayed in his knowledge and understanding of U.S. policy.

So why would Obama want this guy who has no administrative experience to head one of the largest organizations in the world? The administration had to be aware of some of these incendiary quotes from Hagel's record, yet Obama nominated him anyway. And Democrats will vote for him anyway despite the clear demonstration that he gave yesterday of his unreadiness for heading up the Pentagon. They know how badly he performed yesterday, with one Democrat saying, “It is very clear from the testimony that Sen. Hagel will not be bringing the potato salad to the next Mensa picnic.”

In reading about the hearing and how Hagel displayed his deep levels of incompetence, I couldn't help wondering how Barack Obama would have performed if he had been nominated for a position in the government and had to undergo a day's worth of answering questions about past statements and current policy positions. Would he have done all that much better? I suspect that Obama agrees with many of the objectionable things that Hagel has said about Iran and Israel. Obama wants to exact deep cuts from the Defense budget and he knows that, with Hagel, he'll have a willing puppet to fulfill that goal. After all, Hagel certainly plans on following the White House on all policies since he doesn't consider himself a "policymaker."

Normally, a president wouldn't want someone as Defense secretary who thinks that Iran has a legitimately elected government and who opposes sanctions against them. He wouldn't want someone who has demonstrated his ill will towards our most important ally in the Middle East. Yet Obama picked this guy. Maybe those positions don't bother the President. Maybe they're closer to Obama's own views than the President can say in public.

Hagel may be an incompetent fool, but he's definitely the guy Obama wants. And that should tell us a lot about Obama.


fboness said...

Remember, Kerry is the guy Obama wants. Is there a pattern here?

3 tries to get past captcha. Grrrrr

Howard said...

I don't think I can handle learning anything more about Obama.

mark said...

No doubt Hagel was unprepared and did poorly. Yet consider the (in)competence and judgment of some of those who questioned him: McCain helped sell the Iraq war with false information and incorrect predictions. Hagel had the decency and courage to say what we all now know: Invading Iraq was a mistake and history has (and will continue to)judge it accordingly. The "fool" would be the man who gave us Sarah Palin and joked about bombing a country.

And since fboness brought it up, where was the outrage regarding Kerry? Nine years ago, people here joined others in the disgraceful lies about his military service and his loyalty to the country. If you believed it then, why were you okay with most repubs heaping praise on him and confirming him so easily? Did you forget to be outraged, or was it all just a political stunt back in 2004?

Howard said...

Mark, the absence of vast caches of WMDs notwithstanding, it is not a disputed fact that Saddam had not renounced his weapons programs, according to the UN. For what that looks like, see Gadhafi circa December 2003. Therefore, I posit that invading Iraq was not the mistake, but rather the (well-intentioned) nation-building that followed.

As to incompetence and poor judgment, what of Obama's insistence that Afghanistan was the real issue? He escalated our presence (and casualties, which somehow go unremarked upon) greatly, and what have we to show for that? We are on our way to leaving the country back to the tender mercies of the Buddha-bombers.

In Kerry's case, at least for me, the SoS position has been proved to be pretty much for show only the past four years, so as to whoever is occupying it, what difference does it make?

mark said...

the absence of vast caches of WMDs notwithstanding?

That's quite a stipulation. The reason for going to war turned out to be false, but........
Sounds a bit like Krauthammer saying that if you pretend Romney won the election, repubs are in pretty good shape.

If SoS is for show only, you must be befuddled as to why conservatives are going after Clinton on Benghazi.

Last, First, MI said...


Why aren't you going after Hillary and Obama for Benghazi?

There were so many warning signs ahead of the attack that one cannot deny that State Department and White House ineptitude and negligence are at the heart of this matter but then the disgusting attempt to obfuscate and dissemble over the murder of our people, in the midst of the 2012 campaign, must offend your sense of decency, no? I'll bet you must be in terrible turmoil these days because you must have once believed Obama when he said that his would be the "most transparent administration in history"!

Why were our people in Libya and what was the pretense for bombing that country in the first place? Please remind us. (You did bring up the subject of bombing countries, after all.)

Leftists have no end of condemnation for Nixon's bombing of Cambodia but for some reason it's just fine to drop bombs on Libyans without even notifying Congress, let alone receiving approval for that act of war. To that I would add that Kerry, Clinton, and Hagel were all on board with the Bush administration when the war was initiated with Iraq. They judged that it was the right thing to do when they themselves were presented with the same intelligence that Bush was provided. It would seem that rank opportunism - inspired by shifting political winds - was behind their change of heart.

Finally, a liberal such as yourself should be concerned that Obama has missed a chance to select and promote a qualified woman as SecDef - Michèle Flournoy - in favor of an addled sycophant. Besides the fact Obama's war on women rages right along with fewer women serving in his administration than in previous administrations, don't you think that our troops deserve the most qualified person as Secretary of Defense rather than an incoherent fool who seems to receive his most unqualified support from Iran?

Pat Patterson said...

Except the ISG found, no stockpiles, but the infrastructure necessary to restart these programs plus several programs of bio weapons that the UN had specifically banned. To argue that Iraq is not a better country and a somewhat ally is nonsense unless of course it's acceptable to allow countries to attempt to assasinate the leadership of its enemies or gas its enemies.

mark said...


I did criticize Obama for stonewalling on Benghazi, and have acknowledged that he and Clinton are lying about some of the details (btw: I'm certain Obama was lying -pathetically- about skeet shooting. Long live Skeetgate). And I certainly fault Clinton for avoiding responsibility when the tragedy first occurred. I still have no idea why Susan Rice was the lead person instead of Hillary.
That conservatives here backed Romney's disgraceful 9/12 12:01 press release; or the lies (including Krauthammer) about Clinton's "Benghazi flu"); or Fox News' lie that the White House had a live feed to watch the attack take place, proves that this has all been about the politics, and not about the four deaths that might have been prevented.
In other words, your outrage is as fake as your new identity.

Last, First, MI said...


Really? You have "no idea" why Rice was sent forward to lie to the American people about Clinton and Obama's actions or lack thereof with regard to Benghazi? Since you don't seem to be as big of a fool as Hagel, I'll just have to accept that you are willing to swallow their BS because there's no reason, in your mind at least, to let Hillary's presidential aspirations die with that gay ambassador, right?

Wow! All in one day and in one chump, we get to see the true colors of the uber left, as you duck and cover for the party while Americans die, women are pushed aside in the administration, and foreign child prostitutes are targeted by Bob Menendez!

Why do you think it took the Daily Caller to dig that story up on the perverted Senator from NJ? Probably the same reason it took Fox to investigate Benghazi while the rest of the mass media tended to play it down (if they weren't busy repeating the bogus party line outright) and yet you call them liars?

mark said...

read the line again:
And I certainly fault Clinton for avoiding responsibility when the tragedy first occurred.

What I don't understand is why it was Susan Rice who was sent forth instead of a State Dept. underling.

equitus said...

I have a new identity? Well... we all know that if mark believes it, it must be true. lol

Like mark choosing to believe that the veterans in the swift boat ads were all craven liars, and that the junior Senator from MA has a sense of honor.

As with all political claims I hear, left or right, my reaction to the Swiftboat ads was, "I wonder if that is true," withholding judgment. I looked closely at both sides and concluded there wasn't any reason to think the vets were lying, and plenty of reason to suspect Kerry's official record (what he allowed to be released, anyway).

So, mark, you can hold your cherished partisan myths close if it makes you feel good. But you won't be convincing anyone who hasn't already sipped from the Kool-aid. Betsy's readers tend to be more informed and critical, and most of already know all your talking points and media matters.

mark said...

Well, equitus/lfm, at least you have the decency not to deny it.

As with all political claims I hear, left or right, my reaction to the Swiftboat ads was, "I wonder if that is true," withholding judgment

How reasonable! And from the person(s) who claims that anyone who supports gun control is a fascist.

I doubt there is anyone here (myself included) who weighs political claims the same regardless of whether it comes from the left or the right.
There were veterans who vouched for Kerry. Someone was lying. Do you really claim that your decision on whom to believe was not influenced by politics? You're either lying or you're delusional. Both of you.

Last, First, MI said...


Having covered for liars for most of her political career and for her own dealings with the Rose Law firm, Hillary usually knows when it's best to keep her mouth shut and when it is best to forget, or at least say you have.

Remember "I can't recall" and "To the best of my recollection...."? Well, she's probably used all of that up, so it's better just to avoid questions altogether, especially when your boss can trot out some loyal toady that will happily dispense enough CYA for everyone concerned. Send out Rice, let some time pass and then come back shrieking, "What difference does it make anyway at this point?!" She can say that because unquestioning drones on the left do not demand real answers from their favorites, let alone honesty or integrity.

Perhaps most sickening of all, the left will some day herald Hillary for her foreign policy "experience" and "leadership", when she runs for president, just as they've engaged in fantasies about Obama's foreign policy "success"!

I wonder if Obama himself is such dupe, you know, if he believes everything he hears from his own people. I guess we'll know if he ever invites Bob Menendez over to visit with his family at the White House!

mark said...

No arguments from me on the "I do not recall" line. I assume it is a lie about 99% of the time. Obviously, it't the one lie nobody can prove. Of course, repubs have used it very effectively, also. I still remember Reagan saying it repeatedly when he broke the law during the Iran-Contra hearings.

You and equitus are certainly up in arms about Menendez. I'm certain your rage is sincere. I remember how you went on and on about David Vitter and his penchant for being diapered by prostitutes.
Given his past history of ethics-related problems, I assume Menendez is yet another corrupt politician and probably a big-time scumbag. Time will tell if he's guilty of the prostitution charges. Equitus claimed that he weighs all political charges equally and reserves judgment. Does he speak for you as well? Or do you speak for him?

Last, First, MI said...


It's encouraging to know that you recognize when Hillary is lying to you but I have to say it disappoints me that you allow her to continue to do that to you. You must not have much self respect. It reminds me of the battered housewife thing where the unfortunate victim keeps coming back for more.

Reagan...oh so long ago. "What difference does it make anyway at this point?", to quote the future of the Democratic party. I've noticed lefties trying to use him on gun control lately. In fact, even Obama has tried to riff on Reagan recently. You guys are all over the place!

Why don't you demand that Menendez step aside and cooperate with the investigation?

Why doesn't the President?

mark said...

Yes, equitus, Reagan breaking the law is "oh so long ago" (mid 80s), and Hillary and the Rose Law firm (mid 70s, early 80s) is fair game.

Another victory for the "stupid party"

Last, First, MI said...


What about the party that covers for child predators like Menendez?

Where are the Democrats demanding answers for his behavior?

What about the party that covers for sexual harassment in the office - you know - the Oval one? Remember how that whole sordid episode was pitched by Clinton's defenders as just being "about sex"? Here we all thought it was disgusting, to be sure, but criminal because he LIED UNDER OATH! But then, he was a Clinton after all, and that's just their nature.

Instead of trying to define what the meaning of "is" is, how about finding out what it means to have integrity? Instead of shrieking out a self proclaimed expiration date on the importance of the murder of Americans in Libya, why not insist on holding those responsible - the craven politicians at the top of the food chain in the White House and State Department? To say nothing of the fact that the entire incident illustrates the Obama campaign lie that AQ was in check.
(By the way, the illegal bombing of Libya and Obama boost to the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt has really been a boost to violent Islamists in North Africa, so check another block on the foreign policy front, right?)

I guess it's about time for you to side track onto gun control now since you won't provide an answer to any of the above. Maybe you'll rage about the NRA idea of arming guards in schools. Don't be too hasty with that since the people in New Town just voted to do the very same thing with their schools as Sidwell Friends has being doing for years for Washington's elites. Maybe you'll want to rage about getting "assault" weapons off the streets. Good, you can start by getting the ones illegally purchased and transferred, on behalf of Eric Holder, off of Mexico's streets.

The party of sexual predators, the war against women, and the purveyors of death in Mexico (and our own Customs and Border personnel), now there's a party for you Mark!

You may be the party of failure, as seen above, but you at least you're the party of jobs, right?

Oh wait....

mark said...

Nice rant for a Sunday morning.
As I've mentioned before, I am unafilliated, as I believe that both sides are corrupt and have their share of scumbags and worse. I vote more for dems because I believe they have more morals than repubs, but I actually vote more for third parties. I'll answer for the candidates I vote for. I'm not on the hook for Menendez any more than you.
Go ahead and gloat about the failure of the dems, but it is the repub that is naming itself "the stupid party" I'm certain you think you're being clever, but you're (once again) making a fool of yourself. You are "the stupid" that the party is trying to shut up. The more identities you creat, the bigger the embarrassment you become.

Last, First, MI said...


Sounds like your trying to side-step responsibility. Very Clintonesque and Obama-like. No wonder the Dems can count on you when you're not voting for a "third" party. What BS!

Name a third party candidate that you supported nationally this past election cycle.

Name a state level third party candidate that you voted for at any point in the last 10 years.

Identities? Identify ANY Democrat that has demanded that Bob Menendez, child prostitute customer and Democratic Party Senator from New Jersey, step aside and cooperate fully with the current FBI investigation.

Waiting for your answers....

Last, First, MI said...

At the half:

BAL 21

SF 06

Mark 00

mark said...

I would have figured you for a Puppy Bowl viewer.

Did you have a question for me?

equitus said...

No, mark. Held a big Super Bowl bash. Three racks of ribs and 4 lbs of chicken wings. You'd have hated it.

My question, again: Identify ANY Democrat that has demanded that Bob Menendez, child prostitute customer and Democratic Party Senator from New Jersey, step aside and cooperate fully with the current FBI investigation.

I'm starting to really like my alter ego, by the way. He, that is I, has a lot more patience with posers like mark than I, that is he, usually do. Nice rant, if I don't mind saying so myself.

Howard said...

Mark, just because Hillary has no real accomplishments to point to for her four year stint does not mean she should not answer for the (charitably) obfuscation that went on around the failings of an organization of which she is the nominal chief executive. The fact that it took her over five months to appear before Congress regarding Benghazi is anathema to our form of government.

While it is extremely important to fix the process that led to such an abysmal failure, I continue to believe that the vehemence with which the administration promulgated the obfuscation is not likely inspired by fear of embarrassment alone. As such, the Congress has every right (and responsibility) to attempt to get to the bottom of it.

Their official explanation of "evolving intelligence" is laughable, given that news media were publishing contrary reports almost immediately, while the administration bitterly clung to their Youtube fantasy.

mark said...

While I think overall she has done a good job as SoS, I agree with everything you say regarding Benghazi.

Last, First, MI said...


Are you going to support Howard as your "third party" candidate?

Still haven't heard you back-up that weak sister dodge!