Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Note to Senator Inhofe
Word about town is that you're considering a filibuster on Senator Hagel's nomination. Please don't. There's more than enough ill-will in Washington already and you'd also be setting a very bad precedent (what, you don't think that the Democrats will do the same when they're out of power?). Obama won the election and he should get the people that he wants. And, besides, the Pentagon does need a little trimming and auditing and who would better at it than an actual soldier, for Christ? My suggestion is that you simply fall on your sword on this one/quit to politic another day.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
53 comments:
I absolutely do not understand the obsession and hatred over Hagel. Scumbags like Lindsey Graham have been browbeating and bullying him to no end just because he criticized Israel.
I Think both Will and RS are on the wrong side of this issue.Just because a sitting president proposes someone for a post does'nt mean their the one for the job....and in my opinion Hagel is'nt up to the task.
I dont care if he has a purple heart,a bronze star or a silver star or because he was a foot soldier.....I'd doubt very much Apple would take a janitor who got an employee of the month award 30 years ago and promote him to CEO.
Hagel is a perfect example of the Peter Principal....my god,did you not see his performance at his hearing....the man's a dolt.
Hagel has a decent resume as an entrepreneur, CEO positions, Senate and gov't service. VN vet
counts in my book as well. IMO,
his hearings performance was that of a feisty independent type that was advised not to get into a shouting match. (Some of us would
shout back at the arrogant puffed up SOBs). Dunno who they appointed as Apple CEO, but the stocks sure tanked.
Russ, I'll admit that the passionate and articulate Hagel of 2006 is now MIA, but to say that he is somehow ill-equipped after the full-throated idiocy of Cheney is a stretch. And "employee of the month" isn't synonymous with war hero.......And I'm not saying that Inhofe has to vote for Hagel, just that he shouldn't filibuster because you KNOW that the Dems will absolutely follow suit.
Filibuster is the only device at hand for a minority....I say use it.
We all appreciate Hagel's service,but what happened 45 years ago certainly does'nt qualify him to be Sec.Defense. You above all made light of Romney's flip flopping,Hagels is worse,talk about someone who will do or say anything to get a job,he's the poster boy.
Meanwhile DOD goes without a head.
If Inhoffe, McCain, Ayotte & Graham think they can pout until
they get Rumsfeld back, they will
be pouting a long time.
Who does Rusty want?
He's not a moron, Russ. Some people just don't do well in those types of settings and I maintain that McCain was the real idiot for asking that moronic yes-no question and for actually thinking that the surge accomplished something (not to mention Bush who didn't even know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite).
I am even more pissed off now. John McCain and Lindsey Graham's behavior during this whole thing has been deplorable and it seems like the Democrats could have done more with regards to the fillibuster. What dicks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/15/us/politics/leading-senate-republicans-set-to-block-hagel.html
But but... Rusty, he's the terrorists' choice. So of course he should get approved.
Seriously, I agree compeltely. And he should be criticizing our enemies not our friends.
I'm amazed at how people don't realize that not all Americans of Israeli descent or of Jewish heritage have such extremist views when it comes to Israel. Does that mean they are anti-Semites too? What is so bad about having an America First policy? That's way more patriotic than funneling tons of foreign aid into Israel. I'm sorry that I don't hold such an obtuse neoconservative position on this, something that has done a lot to undermine the credibility of the Republican Party and that conservatives need to distance themselves away from.
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-much-america-really-spends-on-israels-defense-2012-9
It's the same tactics that I've seen people who try to defend massive wealth transfers or make a big deal out of the minimum wage. They immediately try to brand people who have some genuine criticisms about the ideas as being some greedy person that wants the poor to starve or some appeal to emotion fallacy like that.
The view that Isrealis should be allowed to live is not the extremist one. I'm not Jewish either, but this does not mean I think it is OK for a nation of millions to be tossed to the wolves. Sorry opposition to genocide and opposition to rabid antisemitism only "undermines credibility" inthe view of truly monstrous people.
I simply do not accept the validity of an argument for a "balanced" approach between a group of people who really just want to live and another group that wants to wipe out the first group.
Criticism of Israel on reasonable matters like tariffs and trade is one thing, criticizing them for standing up to and fighting back against powerful enemies that scream almost daily of their desire and intent to kill off every single Jew is another. And really it is only this latter sort of criticism that ends up being so controversial, unfortunately.
It also has nothing to do with "neoconservatism", which is too often a meaningless pejorative.
'don't realize that not all Americans of Israeli descent or of Jewish heritage have such extremist views when it comes to Israel.' They don't, 69% of them voted for Obama.
BB,the Jewish vote has gone to the Dems since Israel was formed.
The Jews living on both coasts and Florida
have always leaned towards the left.
I dare say dmarks has hit the nail directly on the head.
I'd also guess if polled the fifteen jews living in Idaho twelve of them voted for Obama and all of them are fervently pro-Israel.
And Will,my old friend just what about Hagel makes him so appealing to you? Do you view him as a moderate? He reminds me of the late Arlen Specter or a Spray Tan Charlie Christ.....a bit of a sleeze bag.
Rachel Maddow was so hopping mad about what happened to Hagel today her strap on fell off.
Sooooo,it must have been a good thing.
"Criticism of Israel on reasonable matters like tariffs and trade is one thing, criticizing them for standing up to and fighting back against powerful enemies that scream almost daily of their desire and intent to kill off every single Jew is another. And really it is only this latter sort of criticism that ends up being so controversial, unfortunately."
I'm glad that you made a distinction in this case, but the economy is still not doing so hot right now. Shouldn't the country focus on more domestic issues? Foreign aid can still be sent, but it's time to re-prioritize here, just like how many troops were pulled out of Germany. I also think it's a waste of time and money for our armed forces to be stationed in places like Europe that don't need our help whatsoever. I'm sure Israel has the economy and weapons to defend itself at this point.
This piece from Andrew J. Bacevich has it completely right on foreign policy issues.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/counterculture-conservatism-4001/
"Exposing the excesses of American militarism and the futility of the neo-imperialist impulses to which Washington has succumbed since the end of the Cold War. When it comes to foreign policy, the conservative position should promote modesty, realism, and self-sufficiency. To the maximum extent possible, Americans should “live within,” abandoning the conceit that the United States is called upon to exercise “global leadership,” which has become a euphemism for making mischief and for demanding prerogatives allowed to no other nation. Here the potential exists for conservatives to make common cause with members of the impassioned antiwar left."
While I don't agree with everything that he's proposing, he hit the nail right on the head with this and also with this statement.
"Laying claim to the flagging cause of raising children to become responsible and morally centered adults. Apart from the pervasive deficiencies of the nation’s school system, the big problem here is not gay marriage but the collapse of heterosexual marriage as an enduring partnership sustained for the well-being of offspring. We know the result: an epidemic of children raised without fathers. Turning this around promises to be daunting, but promoting economic policies that make it possible to support a family on a single income offers at least the beginnings of a solution. Yes, just like in the 1950s."
Many prominent people who claim to be conservatives are focusing on the wrong, inconsequential stuff and not on issues that are actually in our best interest. I do not support global militarism or "weaponized Keynesianism."
"'don't realize that not all Americans of Israeli descent or of Jewish heritage have such extremist views when it comes to Israel.' They don't, 69% of them voted for Obama."
That should really tell you something, besides the fact that Romney was a crapass candidate from the beginning.
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/why-american-jews-vote-democrat-while-israel-votes-republican
They even have gays and women serving in the military in Israel.
Rob. said: "Here the potential exists for conservatives to make common cause with members of the impassioned antiwar left."
Only on occasion, and rarely. The former that you mention are concerned with saving money and are concerned that any such cuts do not diminish the strength or our defense at all. I think Will, though he is not a conservative, is in this group. The latter are concerned with weakening the nation. When the former makes the latter smile, I see that as a big problem.
Also, in regards to: "Shouldn't the country focus on more domestic issues? Foreign aid can still be sent, but it's time to re-prioritize here"
With the current leadership and their priorities, it is doubtful that this money will do much good at home. Obama, Reid, etc will find ways to squander it on union thugs, subsidize worthless "green",cars for millionaires, and other such waste which makes up well over a trillion of the nation's annual federal budget. All while doing no one really any bit of good.
it's pretty hard to do much good with the money in this nation, right now. You can consider the much needed infrastructure repairs. Thanks to Davis Bacon, "prevailing wage", and other pure corruption, the system is rigged so a large % of road fundings gets funneled into politics while the rest goes to overpay bad workers to produce shoddy work.
That I can agree with you on. I'm the furthest thing from being a leftist or part of the modern political centre-left and I also don't consider myself to a pacifist. I'm not affiliated with any party nor do I try to get all caught up in political labels and semantics, but I really like the older Edmund Burke influenced conservatism and a lot of classical liberalism. I'm still trying to find myself in this regard.
"With the current leadership and their priorities, it is doubtful that this money will do much good at home. Obama, Reid, etc will find ways to squander it on union thugs, subsidize worthless "green",cars for millionaires, and other such waste which makes up well over a trillion of the nation's annual federal budget. All while doing no one really any bit of good."
Yup. I didn't really think of that. Those Teslas are pretty expensive! Trying to subsidize them won't do the common working man any good.
Or the massive handout to Chrysler so they can in actual fact (yeah, Romney told the truth) export Jeep building jobs to China... and the direct subsidy to Fiskar (sp?) to build electric cars in northern Europe.
In Michigan we had Obama "green" money go to build up a battery company so China could take it over.
Russ and dmarks, Hagel isn't any tougher on Israel (and I don't take a back-seat to anybody when it comes to supporting Israel) than the first President Bush (remember Jimmy Baker chastising Shamir publicly?) was. And I also remind you that Iran was actually helping us after 9/11 and Bush responded to that by putting them on his axis of evil list....Now, do I want Iran to get a nuclear weapon? No, of course not, but there aren't any good military options (a strike would only delay the program by two years - what, we're going to bomb them every two years?) and to actually have somebody who realizes that in the Pentagon (as opposed to McCain who seemingly wants to detonate everybody) isn't the worst thing in the world, in my opinion.
And can Hagel really be any more wrong than Dick Cheney was (the dude was wrong on basically everything pertaining to Iraq)?
NPR, which can be described as a media organ of the Obama Administration (for obvious reasons) yesterday in its main news program summarized Hegel as having opposed sanctions on Iran. This, coupled with that terrorist regime's endorsement of him gives me great pause. Yes, this same Iranian which just a few days ago organized rallies in which people screamed for the murder of every single man, woman and child in America. That includes me, you, Will, and also Chuck Hegel. We all have the Iranian regime's targets on our backs. Their "As fast as they can" efforts to build nuclear bombs to help carry out this high priority national goal of theirs must be taken seriously.
I honestly believe Obama's "lead from behind" policy will and has weakened americas image world wide.
A nuclear Iran certainly presents a problem,but a well armed Israel could surpress the issue.
A nuclear North Korea is a horse of a different color and not because they have means to deliver their nukes,but because they have a 30 year old nitwit calling the shots who's willing to let his people starve while spending billions on bombs.
The issue wont be who their targets are,the issues will be who their customers for the nukes will be and their neighbor to the north will turn a blind eye.
Scary to think what Chuck Hagel would do?
Sorry I mispell his name. BB asked who you want, Rusty.
I figure if by some slim chance he is rejected, the next nominee will be noticably better.
I'd be content if Bob Gates could be talked into returning,if not, one of the following would be far better then Upchuck Hagel.
Ash Carter
Michele Flournoy
Jack Reed
Ash Carter would be excellent, IMO.
I probably misunderstood, thinking
y'all were looking for a hawkish
neocon like Micheal Ledeen:
"the level of casualties (in Iraq) is secondary"
"we are a warlike people (Americans)...we love war"
"Change—above all violent change—is the essence of human history"
"the only way to achieve peace is through total war"
"The purpose of total war is to permanently force your will onto another people"
"Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business"
Maybe Obama should nominate McCain and he can sing his "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" and get us into yet another theater.............Leading from behind, Russ? Obama is frigging dropping bombs on 4-5 countries now. You think that he should follow McCain's advice and take us into Syria now, too?
Syria is a rather typical socialist nation.
From Washington to Truman, these fellows were called Secretary of War . Not a particularly impressive list, but
not one faced a filibuster. None worried about Israel, and I don't either...they have 60-400 nuclear weapons.
BB: That's a really good point...
Unfortunately, there are those who oppose all aid to Israel AND think it is an outrage that they have nuclear weapons.
Will,"leading from behind" is a phrase Obama's own state department used to discribe their policy.
And,I never once mentioned Syria.I could care less if they killed each other off,down to the last man standing.
I do support Israel.The rest of the mideast could take a lesson from them.They turned sand into a vibrant country and did so while their neighbors wished them dead.I think the Israeli jews should be admired....and no,Im not jewish.
Russ, I don't support Obama's foreign policy because it isn't appreciably different from Bush's. Yes, Hagel had a bad couple of days but I maintain that he isn't any worse than Rumsfeld and Cheney and, like BB says, filibustering Defense, Treasury, and State appointments just doesn't happen and if Inhofe does it it WILL happen again and again.......I mean, it's kind of like me and Obama's Treasury pick. I hate it. He should have picked Erskine Bowles or Mark Zandi but he picked this Jack Lew idiot instead. But as much as I hate it I don't think that he should be filibustered.
Will,you dont think Obama's policy has weakened our country? Do you think Iran fears us? Do you think North Korea has any reservations about us?
Do you really think if an incompetent is propsed for an important position we should just sit back and say......oh well?
As for drones.....if they are killing people that wish harm on us......I have no problem with them being dispatched and if they have their kids with them.....they should have rethought that.If you're a terrorist of whatever nationality out for a drive with your family and a Hellfire bears down on you....perhaps you should have chosen another occupation.
Rusty has a great point about these terrorists who engage in atrocities and hide among as many civilians as possible, usually in the hopes that retaliation ends up killing civilians which gives the terrorists some sort of propaganda victory. This is the situation in Gaza for example.
Yeah, Rusty, imagine if these people woke up in the morning and decided to write a book, feed the poor, paint a house... Something productive, as opposed to greeting the sun with "How many Jews/Americans/etc can I butcher and blow up today?"
"Beware the beast man, for he is the devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him, drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of death."
-Planet of the Apes, 29th Scroll,
6th verse
BB said: "Beware the beast man...."
Scary thing is, I recognized that sacred scripture of the Holy Lawgiver within the first few words.
And BB, the other said thing is, about this: "Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed"
Really, hardly anything was known about the great apes back when the "Planet of the Apes" movies came out. Chimps it turns out do kill for sport or lust or greed. Think of Thade from the Tim Burton "Apes" movie instead of Cornelius. That's a lot closer to reality.
Gorillas are not the savage militaristic brutes of the movies: they are the most peaceful and gentle of these species.
Also, way too much is to be said these days about finding racism in movies where it never existed, such as "Lion King".
But it's way too easy to make such claims about the original Apes movies, where the three ape species too easily fall into line with bad stereotypes of the major three human races. Even the face or hair color lines up.
I hate to say it but I kind of agree with Romney (and not Bush and Obama) on this one. "We cannot kill our way out of this."
We did "kill" our way out of WW2, which was not won by negotiating with and appeasing Germany.
But truth be told there are other effective methods for stopping terrorism in its tracks. Israel's high walls (which can't be called "apartheid" or anything like it since they were built to block individuals engaged in acts of murder, not people of an entire race) have greatly reduced terrorism there.
I think that the Middle East is a little trickier than Hitler. I mean, I don't know what the precise metric is with Obama's sextupling of the drone strikes but I sometimes think that he may be creating more terrorists than he's killing....Obviously I hope that I'm wrong.
Trickier but not impossible.
Remember the tax rate in WWII?
We are currently paying a massive amount in taxes, almost unprecedented. But one thing WW2 did have that we don't was an army/etc that dwarfed what we have now. Just pointing out differences.
1944 1st bracket 23%
top bracket 94%
2013 1st bracket 10%
top bracket 35%
BB: I am talking about the amount of money. Even adjusting by inflation doesn't quite cook the numbers properly
Actual tax revenues, getting rid of deceptive tactics some use to cook numbers (not that you ever are deceptive, BB... but others are; expecially those who seek to deceive in order to further the goal of impoverishing the people while enriching the rulers), while not at an all-time high, are close to it. Only a liar would say taxes are at historic lows. The type of person who would look at a dime, and a quarter, and say the quarter is worth less.
Speaking of talking about amount of money: The US produced 16,766
P51 Mustangs @ $51,000 a piece in
WWII-dozens of fighter wings =
$855 million.
The F-117 Stealth, used in Iraq
was produced for $112 million a copy. 59 were produced = $13.77 billion. All 59 were decommissioned in 2008. (but I still see the P-51 making passes at 400 mph at air shows: love that 12 cyl Merlin engine) So any comparisons of WWII and the current WOT, whether cost, taxes or strategy-is quite difficult.
erratum: Two groups of F117s were produced, 64 and 59 = 123. Hence the cost of $13 billion. The ones on the drawing board are much more expensive....Ike nailed that military-industrial nightmare.
A warhorse of a plane. Yeah. hard to compare much. In the age of drones, even the great aircraft carrier seems outmoded.
Post a Comment